To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H Davies, KS Guthrie, RI Matthews, AP Taylor, and DC Taylor.

To receive details of any Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PA Andrews was a substitute member for Councillor AP Taylor; Councillor PJ Edwards was a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews; Councillor JHR Goodwin was a substitute member for Councillor KS Guthrie; Councillor JB Williams was a substitute member for Councillor DC Taylor; and Councillor AT Oliver was a substitute member for H Davies.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the agenda.

9. DMNE/100188/F - HOE FARM, MATHON ROAD, COLWALL, MALVERN, HEREFORDSHIRE, WR13 6EP.

Councillor RV Stockton, Personal and Prejudicial.

11. DMNE/100235/F - LEADON COURT, FROMES HILL, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR8 1HT.

Councillor PM Morgan, Prejudicial, Councillor Morgan left the meeting prior to the application being determined.

13. DMSE/093151/F - CARADOC, SELLACK, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 6LS.

Councillor JA Hyde, Personal.

15. DMNC/100481/CD and DMNC/100482/L - GRANGE COURT, PINSLEY ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 8NL.

Councillor RC Hunt, Personal.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 17 March 2010.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman advised members of the public in respect of the public speaking procedure. He also advised the Committee that Agenda items 1-9 would be dealt with before lunch with the remaining items determined when the meeting was reconvened at 2pm.

To note the decision of the Secretary of State on the Saved Policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

The Planning Policy Manager advised Members that the Unitary Development Plan had been adopted three years ago and that there was now a requirement to save a number of policies prior to the adoption of the Local Development Framework.

The Planning Policy Manager drew Members' attention to paragraph 4 of the report which confirmed that the Secretary of State had now issued the necessary direction and that the list of policies which had been saved was included in the appendix to the report. The report also stated that the full text of the saved policies and the Secretary of State's direction had now been published on the Council's website and that the effect was that the saved policies were still part of the Council's Policy Framework (as defined in the Constitution) and were still part of the Development Plan. He added that consequently regard must be had to the saved policies in the determination of planning applications.

In response to a question, the Planning Policy Manager advised that the policies that would not been saved were the ones that had been covered by other national policies.

RESOLVED

THAT Committee note the decision of the Secretary of State and continue to apply the Saved Policies accordingly.

Erection of free standing timber deck to front of Public House, deck to include ambulant stepped access.  Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

Erection of free standing timber deck to front of Public House, deck to include ambulant stepped access.  Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

She added that a representation had been received from Bartestree Parish Council after the updates sheet had been produced. This representation reiterated the Parish Council’s stance in respect of the application and raised no new material planning considerations.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Brunt spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The Parish Council had met on Tuesday and were therefore unable to register to speak, Chairman should allow late registration of speakers in these circumstances.
• The applicant had addressed all of the issues raised at the previous meeting including landscaping, colour, disabled access, and ensuring that the decking was free standing and not attached to the original building.
• Landscaping needed further discussion as oak and cherry were not ideal materials for screening, this could be addressed through a suitable condition.
• The applicant had proved that the decking had been beneficial to the trade of the public house and the application should be granted.
• The applicants were happy to move the satellite dish from the front to the side of the building.

Members opened the debate by stating that in their opinion public houses needed to remain the heart of the community, they were therefore sympathetic to the needs of the applicant in the current financial climate. They did however note the concerns raised in respect of the application and questioned whether the decking could be relocated to the side of the public house. Members also voiced their concerns in respect of the proposed screening. They felt that Oak and Cherry were not suitable materials for screening the decking but felt that this matter could be rectified through an appropriate condition.

Some members questioned the merit of the application and noted that there was a large garden area to the rear of the public house that could be used for seating. They felt that the decking was inappropriate for a grade 2 listed building and agreed with the case officer that granting the application would result in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties.

In response to a number of questions from members, the Senior Planning Officer advised Members that there was not currently a disabled access into the premises and that the applicant had stated that the proposed ramp would ensure an easy access into the building. She added that she could not confirm if there had been an increase in trade since the decking had been in situe and she also advised Members that concerns had been raised by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form live/work unit.

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form live/work unit.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Harding spoke on behalf of the Town Council, and Mr Lewis, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PJ Watts, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The topography of the site had not been considered in the flood risk assessment.
• Evidence proved that there was no risk of flood with the floor level 1.45 metres above flood level.
• There had been a mill on the site as far back as 1066.
• Restoration of the building had been required due to a fire in the 1950’s.
• The production of charcoal required 24 hour supervision.
• There was an identified local housing need.
• There had been no reported accidents on the access road.
• The business plan should be viewed as an indication of the applicant’s plans and not set in stone.
• The canal route did enter the site but the application site itself was not on the canal route

Some members felt that the Council had a responsibility for shaping and supporting rural enterprises and should strive to accommodate young people in the countryside. They felt that it was imperative that the proposed dwelling be tied to the farm with an appropriate condition. It was noted that there had previously been a scrap metal yard on the site and that the entrance to the site had been historically used with no reports of any accidents. Members noted that in their opinion the application was in accordance with the government guidance in relation to sustainable development (PPS1) and also accorded with national policies PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, and UDP policy H8.

Other Members agreed that the Council should support rural enterprises and recommended that the applicant contact the Council’s Economic Development team who could offer guidance and advice. They also voiced concerns regarding the profitability of the enterprise and felt that the application should be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. It was noted that the Committee were not trying to prevent the applicant from pursuing his career but that temporary accommodation could provide the solution to any possible functional need for a dwelling on the site.

In response to a number of points raised by Members the Principal Planning Officer advised that local and national planning policies aimed to encourage rural enterprise and that the applicant’s proposed live/work unit was divorced from the woodland. He added that the functional need to live on the site could be provided through temporary accommodation. Finally he advised Members that the proposed woodland planting outlined in the application would take a number of years to mature and that there was no alternative source of timber near to the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Proposed erection of new linked building/extension to joinery workshop.

Proposed erection of new linked building/extension to joinery workshop.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Johnson, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Eldridge, the applicant, spoke in support.

Members discussed the application and noted the concerns of the neighbouring residents; they also noted that neither the Traffic Manager nor the local Parish Council had objected to the application. They applauded the applicant for the quality of work produced in the workshop and supported the application. They did however have some concerns in respect of possible noise disturbances to the neighbouring premises as well as concerns about the proposed screening. Members also noted the concerns in respect of external ventilation and asked for clarification as to whether the ventilation units could be moved inside the building.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that mature screening could be negotiated and added that consideration should be given to the density of the screening rather than the height. . In reference to the possibility of relocating the extraction units to the inside of the building, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this would not be possible however there were no extraction units proposed on the elevation nearest to the neighbouring dwelling. He added that condition 6 addressed any concerns of noise.

In response to a question in relation to the number of objections received regarding the application, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that objections had been received from 40 people from as far away as Malvern. It was noted that there were only two residential dwellings in the proximity of the application site.

Members praised the applicant and the neighbouring resident for their willingness to work together to overcome any issues. They added that there seemed to be a question mark over the ownership of the dividing fence and questioned whether the applicant would be willing to get the fence repaired as a gesture of goodwill if the application was approved. They also noted that there had been a breach of conditions on the site and requested that the site be monitored closely to ensure compliance.

In response to a question regarding the hours of operation, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the existing building was permitted for use until 8pm and could not be restricted to a 6pm terminal hour. It was therefore reasonable to allow the new unit the same hours of operation.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2          Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted the following matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval:-

                        Written details including a colour chart and the appropriate British Standard Paint number of the paint colours to be used on the wall and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Change of use of land from agricultural to family travellers site, plus retrospective application for construction of barn and new access.

Change of use of land from agricultural to family travellers site, plus retrospective application for construction of barn and new access.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Field spoke on behalf of Bishop Frome Parish Council, Mr. Mann spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baines spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PM Morgan, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There were genuine local concerns about the proposal which needed to be taken seriously and in the context of the Unitary Development Plan policies.

·         Referring to policies S1 (Sustainable Development), DR1 (Design) and LA2 (Landscape Character and Area Least Resilient to Change), concerns were expressed about the sustainability of the proposal and its impact upon the appearance and distinctive character of the area.

·         Local residents disputed the comment of the Conservation Manager that ‘…there were limited views into the site from public vantage points…’ and they did not consider that the proposal would safeguard landscape quality and visual amenity.  It was questioned whether the proposed landscaping scheme would adequately screen the structures, particularly in winter.  Landscape quality was described as the county’s most valuable asset and high standards of sustainability and design should be required.

·         Referring to policies H7 (Housing in the Countryside Outside Settlements) and H12 (Gypsy and Other Travellers), Councillor Morgan noted the need for sites to be in sustainable locations, with access to services and facilities.  It was not considered that a case had been made for an exception site in this open countryside location.  She felt that it was likely that the occupants would need to use vehicles given the distance to Bishops Frome and lack of footpaths.

·         Councillor Morgan questioned the comment in the report that ‘Compared to Bosbury, the applicants’ current residence, Bishops Frome offers more services, facilities and is a more sustainable location to be based’.  She compared the two locations and was of the opinion that Bosbury met better the infrastructure considerations identified in Circular 1/2006 (Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites).

·         Councillor Morgan disagreed with the comment in the report that ‘The agricultural building is considered of a size and scale commensurate with the landholding and agricultural activities taking place’ and felt that the dimensions of the barn could conflict with policy E13 (Agricultural and Forestry Development).  It was noted that Circular 1/2006 suggested that consideration be given to separate sites for residential and for business purposes if a mixed site was not practicable.

·         Councillor Morgan felt that the application failed on a number of fronts and was contrary to adopted planning policies, particularly S1, LA2, H12 and E13.

Councillor JD Woodward noted that the site was outside the village settlement boundary and, referring to business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Erection of 11 kW masted wind turbine.

Erection of 11 kW masted wind turbine.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  Following the receipt of the comments of the Environmental Health Protection Manager, the recommendation was amended accordingly.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1       A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2       An annual report detailing any bat or bird fatalities associated with the domestic wind turbine hereby permitted shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for a period of three years after the installation of the wind turbine. Monthly checks shall be made from 1 May to 31 October in each calendar year as a minimum and the report shall include dates, times, location and condition (dead or injured, and type of injury where identified) of all bats and birds found within a 5 metre radius of the domestic wind turbines.

The landowner shall afford access at all reasonable times to any ecologist nominated by the Local Planning Authority for monitoring purposes, between May and September each calendar year for a period of 3 years from completion of installation.

Reason: To provide information on bats and birds affected by domestic wind turbines to Herefordshire Council for research purposes, in the interests of biodiversity and to meet the requirements of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and the NERC Act 2006. To comply with Herefordshire Council’s UDP Policies NC5 and NC6 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and the NERC Act 2006.

3       The wind turbine hereby permitted shall be removed from the land within six months of it no longer being required for harnessing wind energy or no longer fulfilling its purpose due to it having reached the end of its useful life.

Reason: To safeguard the open countryside from structures that no longer have a useful function/purpose.

INFORMATIVES:

1       N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

2              N11A Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – Birds

3       N11B Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) & Cons (Nat. Hab Bat)

Single storey extension, new bay windows and hipped slate roof to replace existing flat roof.

Single storey extension, new bay windows and hipped slate roof to replace existing flat roof.

The Development Control Manager gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  Following the receipt of the comments from Welsh Water, an additional informative note was recommended and it was noted that a copy of the plan from Welsh Water would be attached to the decision notice.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PA Andrews, a local ward member, commented that there had been reservations about design elements of a previous submission [DMCW/093174/FH refers] but the local ward members had no objections in principle to this application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1       A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission).

2       B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. RAC/1, RAC/2, RAC/3).

3       C03 Matching external materials (general).

4       I16 Restriction of hours during construction.

Informatives:

1       NC01 Alterations to submitted/approved plans.

2              N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

Erection of six detached houses (Amendment to SH940997PF).

Erection of six detached houses (Amendment to SH940997PF).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  He added that, since the updates sheet had been produced, two further letters had been received from a planning consultant acting on behalf of an adjacent landowner and the contents were summarised.  In addition, a petition containing 318 signatures had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Harvey spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baume spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JA Hyde, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site was in a sensitive location where new residential development would not be contemplated ordinarily and there was sympathy for the views expressed by local residents and interested bodies.  Nevertheless, as detailed in the Officer’s Appraisal, the application derived from an approved enabling scheme to finance the restoration of Caradoc Court.  Consequently, the applicant was free to implement the planning permission from 1995. 

·         Attention was drawn to paragraph 6.10 of the report which concluded that ‘…the financial evidence available confirms that the current proposal is no more profitable than the extant scheme…’.

·         Benefits arising from the current application included enhancements in terms of design and mitigating impact on protected trees.  In respect of access and parking arrangements, it was noted that both schemes involved the use of the bridleway and it was not considered that the new proposal would generate more traffic.

·         The officer’s report was commended for thoroughness and the detailed background information provided.  The concerns of local residents were noted but the extant planning permission remained a key factor in the determination of the current application.

Councillor PJ Watts commented on the level of investment in the restoration of Caradoc Court, that architectural design had moved on since 1995, and he did not consider that a site inspection was necessary given the extant planning permission.

Councillor ACR Chappell said that the principle of development had been established in 1995 and the Planning Committee needed to consider the comparative merits of the schemes.  He concurred with the assessment regarding traffic impact, particularly given the property types proposed.  Given the applicant’s fallback position, he supported the recommendation of approval.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted the need for adequate consideration of the material planning considerations, particularly as development in this location was contrary to a number of adopted planning policies.  Some reservations were expressed about the change of design from cottage to executive style dwellings and about the means of access for emergency, routine services and refuse collection vehicles.

In response to questions and comments:

w        The Principal Planning Officer advised that dressing rooms in some of the extant scheme house types would be capable of modification to provide 4 bedrooms; it was noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Proposed extension to existing building and change of use from B1 (business use) to live/work unit.

Proposed extension to existing building and change of use from B1 (business use) to live/work unit.

The Northern Team Leader Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  He also corrected an error in paragraph 6.7 of the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Edwards spoke on behalf of Titley and District Parish Council and Mrs. Lloyd spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         It was noted that a separate residential building in this location was unlikely to be supported but this proposal would appear as an extension to an existing building and would not have any significant further impact on the landscape character of the area.

·         There was genuine functional need to serve the rural enterprise and on the basis of its long term financial viability, particularly as the enterprise supported a number of important local agricultural businesses that required out of hours service.  Consequently, Councillor Phillips considered that the proposal complied with policies H7 (Housing in the Countryside Outside Settlements) and H8 (Agricultural and Forestry Dwellings Associated with Rural Businesses).

·         Councillor Phillips also considered that the residential element had been carefully sited within the existing unit, with the elevations softened by timber cladding, and complied with policies DR1 (Design) and LA2 (Landscape Character and Areas Least Resilient to Change).

·         If members were minded to grant planning permission, he suggested that officers, in consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member, be authorised to issue planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary by officers, to include a condition linking the residential element to the business.

A number of members spoke in support of the application, comments included:

• The live / work elements of this particular rural enterprise were closely linked.
• The enterprise supported other agricultural businesses both locally and further afield; it was noted that communication with international customers would necessarily require extended working hours.
• The proposal was considered a sustainable form of development and delegation to issue planning permission subject to conditions was proposed.
• A concern was expressed about safety for children around the building and it was suggested that this could be addressed through the conditions.

§         It was not considered that landscape impact would be so significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission.

Councillor Phillips was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  He reiterated the functional and financial justification for the development and considered that the scheme was in accordance with the planning policies.

As members were minded to determine the application contrary to the officer recommendation, attention was drawn to section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process.  The Head of Planning and Transportation and the Locum lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

DMNC/100481/CD - Proposed removal of existing minor extensions, internal alterations and new extension to form offices and community rooms for rent (amendments to previously approved planning application DCNC2009/0435/CD).

DMNC/100482/L - Proposed removal of existing minor extensions, internal alterations and new extensions to form offices and community rooms for rent (amendments to previously approved planning permission DCNC2009/0436/L).

DMNC/100481/CD - Proposed removal of existing minor extensions, internal alterations and new extension to form offices and community rooms for rent (amendments to previously approved planning application DCNC2009/0435/CD).

DMNC/100482/L - Proposed removal of existing minor extensions, internal alterations and new extensions to form offices and community rooms for rent (amendments to previously approved planning permission DCNC2009/0436/L).

The Northern Team Leader gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  In response to the additional representations, amendments were suggested to require: obscure glazing to a toilet window; to increase the height of a boundary wall commensurate with other walls; and to delete a window from the gable.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Butler and Mrs. Rulton spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Duckham spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RC Hunt, a local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         Noting the concerns of the objectors, Councillor Hunt said that communication with local residents about works to Grange Court and its grounds could have been managed better.

·         He supported the new drawings and considered some of the design elements to be an improvement on the original scheme, particularly to the central foyer / reception area to define the entrance better.

·         He welcomed the suggested amendments to the window and wall treatments to mitigate the impact on residential amenity.

·         Concern was expressed about the delay to highway works in the vicinity of the site.

In response to a question from a member, the Northern Team Leader explained that the applications were presented for consideration prior to the expiry of the consultation period given the identified urgency to comply with funding requirements.  The Development Control Manager said that delegated authority was sought to approve the application but this would not be exercised if any representations raising substantially new material planning objections were received.  He added that listed building consent would need to be referred to the Secretary of State in any case.  The Head of Planning and Transportation said that it was regrettable that there was a perception that the scheme had not been managed as well as it could have been and that he would pass the message on to the relevant parties to urge the involvement of local residents to a greater extent.

A number of members supported the applications.

Councillor RC Hunt was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  He welcomed the officer comments and commitments.

RESOLVED:

In respect of application for planning permission DMNC/100481/CD:

a)      Subject to the receipt of no representations raising substantially new issues not previously considered by the end of the statutory consultation period, that the Head of Planning and Transportation be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:

1       B04 amendment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

[Provisional] Site Visit/s - 11 May 2010

Next scheduled Planning Committee - 12 May 2010

Members noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee would take place on Wednesday 12 May 2010.