To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors GFM Dawe, KS Guthrie, B Hunt, RI Matthews and RV Stockton.

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, Councillors AE Gray, RH Smith and JB Williams were substitute members for Councillors B Hunt, KS Guthrie and AP Taylor.

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

There were no declarations of interest made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2010.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 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 Officers present at the meeting.

The Chairman advised members that agenda item 7 had been withdrawn as the report was incomplete.

At the request of Councillor BA Durkin, the consideration of agenda item 11 was bought forward to be considered immediately after agenda item 9.

To be noted.

The Committee noted the report.

To update the Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy.

The report was withdrawn.

Change of use of land for stationing of caravans to provide 1 no. residential mobile home for agricultural workers employed in free range egg production.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Willis spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor JS Stone, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·               Attention was drawn to the planning history of the site, including a number of enforcement issues that had arisen.

·               It was understood that other letters had been submitted but these were not indicated in the report.

·               A comment was made about the length of time taken to reach this stage; the application had been received in July 2009.

·               The application needed to be considered on its planning merits, the principal policies relevant to the application being H8 (Agricultural and forestry dwelling and dwellings associated with rural businesses) and PPS7 (Sustainable development in rural areas).

·               It was noted that the County Land Agent accepted that there was a functional need for on site accommodation and the Planning Inspector (on an earlier enforcement appeal) had commented that it would be desirable for someone to be close to livestock at all times if the development of an egg production unit occurred.

·               It was also noted that the visual impact of the development was limited and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

·               Councillor Stone commented that, if the committee was minded to approve temporary permission, the applicant needed to abide by the conditions.

In response to questions from members about the functional requirement for this proposal, the Principal Planning Officer commented on animal welfare issues and, given the relatively isolated position of the site, on site accommodation would enable any related emergencies to be dealt with immediately.  In response to another question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that right of access was a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.

A number of members did not consider that the functional requirement for on site accommodation had been demonstrated given the scale of the enterprise and felt unable to support the application.  However, other members considered that the policy criteria had been met on balance.

The Head of Development Management advised that a temporary permission was recommended to enable the authority to assess the continued need for the development.  The Principal Planning Officer clarified issues in relation to the planning history of the site.

Some members commented on the need to support sustainable local businesses.  It was emphasised that, given the retrospective nature of the application and issues with earlier developments, the applicant had to comply with all the conditions required.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, the local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Stone commented on the need to balance the various points raised for and against the development, welcomed the use of renewable energy sources, and noted that temporary permission provided an opportunity to review the impact of the development.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1       F22 Temporary permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Proposed single storey extension and alterations to car parking arrangements.

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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JE Pemberton, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         It was unfortunate that the application could not be determined at the last meeting of the Planning Committee.

·         A full flood risk assessment had been submitted with the application.

·         No comments had been received from Hampton Bishop Parish Council.

• The original dwelling would remain the dominant feature.

Members supported the application and noted that it had only come before the Committee as it had been submitted by an Officer holding a politically restricted post within Herefordshire Council.

Councillor Pemberton was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. She chose to make no further statement.

RESOLVED

Provided that no representations are received that raise material planning considerations that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2          B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3          H13 Access, turning area and parking

4          G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

INFORMATIVES:

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

Discharge of Section 52 Agreement attached to planning permission SH891980/PO  to remove occupancy condition.

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 Jones, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The business served 40 farmers and 43 local businesses.

·         The application was essential for the continuation of the business.

·         The applicant’s parents were due to retire from the family business.

·         The applicant had approached a number of lenders but could not get a mortgage due to the section 52 condition.

·         The dwelling had been build in the early 1990’s and was not a new dwelling in open countryside.

·         There were 59 letters of support for the application.

·         The Council’s Economic Development team did not object to the application.

·         The business was established and successful.

• The section 52 agreement should be removed in order to help the business develop.

Members discussed the application and noted that although they supported the Planning Officers and Policies there were times when it was necessary to make exceptions and deviate from the planning guidance. They noted that the application was not a new build and had been in situ for 20 years.  They also felt that there was a need to encourage businesses to thrive, especially in the current difficult economic climate.

Members noted that supporting the application and discharging the Section 52 agreement would not set a precedent as each application had to be determined on its merits.

The Head of Development Management noted that Members had referred to a similar application at Garway Hill however that site benefitted from an occupancy condition. He added that the removal of the Section 52 agreement would result in a dwelling in open countryside which was permitted as an exception to policy and which would now not benefit from planning control.

Members noted the support for the application from local residents as well as the Council’s Economic Development team.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Team Leader (South) confirmed that if the business activities on the site ceased and the applicants remained in the property they would be in breach of the existing section 52 agreement and be subject to enforcement action.

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

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Demolition of existing residential property, construction of 8 no. apartments, 3 no. town houses with associated car parking, landscaping and access.

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 Tarzey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         There had been consultation between the local ward members and the applicants but no agreement had been reached in respect of the application.

·         Why did the existing house need to be demolished?

·         A single dwelling on the site would be preferred by local residents.

·         Approving the application would have a detrimental effect on the street scene.

·         The application was similar to the one refused by the Planning Committee earlier this year.

·         The petition was signed by genuine people from the area.

·         No affordable housing as part of the development.

·         The application would result in over development of the site and the footprint of the development was too large.

·         There was not enough parking on the site, there would therefore be a negative impact on the highway.

·         Could the application be deferred pending the results from the appeal?

·         Concerns regarding DR1, HBA6 and H13 had not been addressed.

• The residents of Eastfield Road would still be able to see the propose development.

In response to the local ward members comments regarding a possible deferral of the application the Head of Development Management advised members that the application should not be deferred pending the outcome of any pending appeal decision. He confirmed that the current appeal on the site was due to be determined in December 2010 but that this could not be guaranteed. He also confirmed that the authority could be subject to an appeal on the grounds of non determination if the application was not determined.

Some members voiced their concerns in respect of the proposed height, mass, footprint and appearance of the development. They were also concerned that the proposed car parking provisions would not meet the demands of the residents.

Other members of the Committee noted that there was a need for development on the site and that the proposed application was an improvement on the previous application on the site, which was still subject of an appeal. It was also noted that approving the application would not result in a precedent being set as any application in the area would have to be determined on its merits.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Locum Lawyer confirmed that if the appeal was successful then the inspector would determine suitable conditions. He also advised that PPS3 had been amended to remove the reference to 30 dwellings per hectare and that the amendments did not restrict development of gardens.

One member was concerned that the Section 106 draft  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Alterations to 2 nos. bungalows to include demolition of existing porch & construction of new extension & porch.

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.

Members supported the application and noted that it had only come before the Committee as the land was owned by an elected member of Herefordshire Council.

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

3          C01 Samples of external materials

4          I16 Restriction of hours during construction

INFORMATIVES:

1          The details required by condition no. 3 also refers to the external     materials/finishes intended for the new outbuildings, the new porch and            chimney.

Date of next site inspection    - 23 November 2010

Date of next meeting               - 24 November 2010

Members noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee was scheduled for 10:00 am on 24 November 2010.