To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors H Davies, GFM Dawe and B Hunt.

To receive details any details of 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.

6. DMS/102972/F - Castle Lodge Hotel, Green Court, Wilton, Ross on Wye, HR9 6AD.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, Owns a work premises near the application site.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Removal of Conditions 13 and 16 of Planning Permission S/102971/F. Refurbishment and conversion of existing derelict barn to restaurant and create new car parking facilities and associated junction improvement works - to Remove conditions linking the ancillary use of the restaurant to the hotel.

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 Tait, a neighbouring resident spoke in objection to the application and Mr Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Members were advised that the Local Ward Member, Councillor JA Hyde, had a longstanding commitment and could therefore not be present.

The Committee noted the reasons for refusal from the 2009 application and felt that these were still valid and had not been overcome through the new application. They had concerns in respect of vehicular access onto the busy Wilton Road roundabout as well as concerns regarding parking on Benhall Lane.

It was noted that Wilton Castle was now open to the public and also held a number of events throughout the year which had exacerbated the parking issues in the area.

Members expressed concerns that the site could be used for a takeaway premise in the future. One Member noted that the proposed conditions would not allow a takeaway usage on the site. A member of the Committee also noted that there had been no objection from the Highways Agency and that in his opinion the additional parking provisions made the application acceptable.

The Development Manager advised Members that the application sought to remove two conditions and that the separation of the two uses on the site would note generate much additional traffic. He noted that at present there was insufficient parking provision at the Castle Lodge Hotel and that this would be resolved by approving the application.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The local planning authority considers that conditions 13 and 16 of planning permission DCSE2005/2343/F (17 March 2006) continue to serve a useful planning purpose. The removal of these conditions would allow the operation of two separate businesses, with a concomitant increase in traffic upon the adjoining lane and an increased risk of indiscriminate parking upon it. Given the proximity of the site to the strategic road network and the inadequacy of the junction onto the B4260, the local planning authority considers the conditions essential in maintaining both highway safety and the residential amenity of local residents. The application is thus contrary to Policies DR2, DR3 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

Retention of existing dwelling (Penrice) and erection of 8 two and three bedroom dwellings.

The Team Leader (South) 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 Bowring, a neighbouring resident spoke in objection to the application and Mr Rainey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AE Gray, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The previous applications on the site were refused due to visual impact.
• The current proposal has addressed the visual impact issue from Walford Road by retaining the existing dwelling.
• The visual impact from Eastfield Road has also been addressed through the reduction in height of the proposal.
• Could the determination of the application be deferred until the Inspector’s decision on the previous application is known.

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

• Opposed to the previous application as they were not in keeping with the area.
• A meeting was convened with the planning officer and the developer in order for the developer to present a revised proposal seeking to address local concerns.
• Current proposal does appear to have addressed the majority of the concerns regarding overlooking and visual impact.
• The determination of the application should be deferred pending the Inspector’s decision.
• There was still a great deal of concern from the local residents regarding the application.

In response to the comments from the local ward members the Team Leader (South) advised Members that the timescale for the Inspector’s decision was unknown. He added that the application needed to be determined on its merits and expressed concern about deferring it for that reason.

The Locum Lawyer advised Members that the appeal decision was not a material planning consideration and therefore the determination of the application should not be deferred for that reason.

Members discussed the application and felt that it was more acceptable than the previous two applications which had been refused on the site. They felt that a number of the issues that had been raised during the previous applications had now been resolved. Members advised that they had received a letter from the applicant’s agent which explained the compromises the developer had made in order to make the application acceptable and that the applicant would prefer to implement the current application for housing rather than the previous application which was still the subject of an appeal.

In response to a question the Development Manager advised Members that if the appeal was successful and the current application was also approved the decision of which permission to implement would lay solely with the applicant. He added that if the appeal was refused or allowed the current application would still have to be determined.

Members continued to discuss the merits of the application and were of the view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Date of next site inspection -  Tuesday 26 April 2011

Date of next meeting -            Wednesday 27 April 2011

The Planning Committee noted the date of the next meeting.