To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor H Davies.

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 AT Oliver attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor H Davies.

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

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2010.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman introduced all of the Officer’s who were present at the meeting.

To be noted.

Councillors PJ Watts and KS Guthrie agreed to represent the Planning Committee at the forthcoming appeal in respect of the application at Freemans Paddock.

The Committee noted the report.

Proposed construction of 20 new dwellings and new access road andassociated works.

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. During his presentation he addressed the key issues regarding the application, these included the principle of development; the loss of the playing field; the density and design of the development; the transportation issues; the foul drainage and surface water issues in the area; affordable housing; ecology and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer also clarified a number of points, including; that the access was 5.5 metres wide; that the visibility splay was 24 metres in one direction and 16 metres in the other; that the gradient into the site was 1 in 12 at its steepest point; and that the affordable housing would be allocated through the local housing association.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Ashton, representing Colwall Parish Council, and Mr Hamilton, representing a number of local residents, both spoke in objection to the application, and Mr McCann, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RV Stockton, the Vice-Chairman, speaking in his capacity of local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The application was acceptable subject to the resolution of the issues regarding the highway and the sewerage.
• The drain in question had been improved after recent cleaning and major work was taking place on 20and 21 December 2010 to resolve the remaining issues.
• The tennis court could be used for additional parking if required.
• Surface water is stored and released slowly giving a 45% improvement over the current situation.

In response to comments from the public speakers and the local ward member, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that although the capacity of the sewerage system was a planning matter the maintenance of the system was the responsibility of Severn Trent. He also confirmed that the pupil roll had increased from 202 to 219 although the school had a maximum capacity of 300.

The Area Engineer (Development Control) advised Members that parking restrictions would need to be applied for by the Parish Council and would need to meet the required criteria. He also confirmed that it could take over a year for the works to be commenced.

One of the Members advised the Committee that he had attended the recent site inspection and noted that although the junction had already been improved there was still an issue regarding its navigation by large vehicles. It was noted that delivery vehicles and buses often reversed to the school through a no entry sign. Members noted that improvement works could rectify the issues regarding the junction.

A number of members commented on the application and had concerns regarding the reduced visibility out of the site due to the protected trees. Concerns were also raised in respect of child safety due to pupils having to cross a public footpath which separated the two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Light industrial units B1 use.

The Head of Development Management advised Members that further information regarding the application had been received. He requested that Members defer the consideration of the application pending further discussions with the applicant.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred.

Erection of an affordable dwelling.

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 Taylor, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

• The application should be supported as it would provide an affordable home for a local young family.
• None of the affordable homes referred to at Dark Lane would be available for sale to local people.
• Other neighbouring authorities appear to be more open to these types of applications.
• The poor health of the applicant’s wife appears to have been disregarded in the report.
• The site was not an unreasonable distance from Leintwardine.

One Member of the Committee felt that in his opinion the application was similar to the traveller’s site application which was refused contrary to Officer’s recommendation recently.

Members discussed the application and felt that the proposed dwelling was adjoining to an established rural settlement. They noted that the applicants were local residents who were currently on the Homepoint waiting list.

In response to a question regarding the affordability of the home, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the dwelling would be sold at 60% of market value in perpetuity. In response to a further question he also confirmed that there had been no details in the application in respect of any special requirements for the dwelling to make it suitable for any person with a disability.

The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste advised Members that the application needed to be determined on its merits taking into consideration current planning policy but having regard to any material planning considerations which could support the application. He stressed the importance of Unitary Development Plan Policy H10 in the determination of the application.

The Head of Development Management advised that if permission were to be granted it would be appropriate for the dwelling to be subject to it being for affordable housing, be as such in perpetuity and any resale should be at 60% of the normal market value.

The Locum Lawyer and the Democratic Services Officer had a brief discussion in respect of section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process. The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste, and the Locum lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, both felt that a Further Information Report would not be required and therefore the Committee could proceed to the vote.

Councillor Barnett was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be granted subject to the restrictions discussed and to any other conditions considered appropriate by officers in consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member.

Change of use from vacant barbers (A1), to hot food takeaway (A5).

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 Mrs Newman, representing Kington Town Council, and Mrs Baines, representing a number of local residents, both spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Simpson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

• The area was a mixture of small retail shops and residential dwellings.
• There were a number of concerns regarding highways issues due to cars parking on double yellow lines outside the nearby takeaway and supermarket.
• The nearby takeaway closed at 9pm and was not open 7 days a week.
• The town currently had an issue with antisocial behaviour which would be exacerbated with an additional late night premise.
• The proposed development was 150 metres from the nearest car park.
• The application should be refused due to the highways issues and the impact on the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring residential dwellings.

Members discussed the application and noted the concerns raised regarding highways and parking. Members felt that people would park outside the premise which, coupled with the traffic from the nearby supermarket and Chinese takeaway, would have an adverse impact on highway safety in the area.

Members also raised concerns in respect of the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents. They noted that once a class A5 usage was established any type of takeaway could operate from the premise. Concerns were raised in respect of the suitability of the extraction system due to the location of the extraction flume.

In response to comments made by Members, the Assistant Director – Environment, Planning, and Waste noted that concerns regarding traffic and parking and the impact on neighbouring resident were material planning considerations and acceptable reasons for members to refuse the application.

The Locum Lawyer and the Democratic Services Officer had a brief discussion in respect of section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process. The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste, and the Locum lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, both felt that a Further Information Report would not be required and therefore the Committee could proceed to the vote.

Councillor James was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

RESOLVED

THAT the application be refused on the following grounds.

1          The proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on public highway issues and is therefore considered contrary to Policies DR2 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2          It is considered that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of dwellings within close proximity to the application site, by means of odour and noise that would be generated from the proposed development. Therefore the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Forming of new access and site road. Construction of new packing shed.  Erection of 2 no. polytunnels.  Placing of 4 no. mobile storage unitson site.

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 Mrs Reynolds, representing Burghill Parish Council, and Mrs Roberts, a local resident, both spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Ball, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

• There were a number of local concerns regarding the highways and road safety.
• 55 metres of hedgerow would have to be removed to allow for a suitable access.
• There was no footpath so people would have to walk along a busy road.
• The site was in a dominant position and would therefore change the character of the area.
• There would be no new employment opportunities as all of the staff would be moved from the current operation.
• The site was not suitable for any further expansion.

The Committee felt that a site inspection would be beneficial to assess the setting and surroundings and to make a judgement on the visual impact of the proposal.

RESOLVED

THAT a site inspection be undertaken on the following grounds.

            A judgement is required on visual impact, and;

            the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered, and cannot reasonably be made without visiting the site in question.

Site inspection [provisional]                   -     11 January 2011

Next scheduled Planning Committee    -     12 January 2011

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.