Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie, JLV Kenyon and P Jones CBE.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson and JD Woodward attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors KS Guthrie and JLV Kenyon.

7. DMS/102921/O - Land to the East of Holywell Gutter Lane, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, HR1 4JN.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor rents a farm from Bloor Homes.

7. DMS/102921/O - Land to the East of Holywell Gutter Lane, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, HR1 4JN.

Councillor JD Woodward, Personal, The existing rugby club falls within the Councillor's ward.

7. DMS/102921/O - Land to the East of Holywell Gutter Lane, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, HR1 4JN.

Councillor RI Matthews, Personal, The Councillor knows one of the public speakers.

8. DMS/111601/F - Outfall Works Road through Rotherwas to B4399, Hereford.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, A member of the Councillors family serves on the Parish Council.

8. DMS/111601/F - Outfall Works Road through Rotherwas to B4399, Hereford.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, Personal, The Councillor sits on the steering group as a local ward member.

9. DMS/111132/F - Field, The Leys, Lynne Down, Much Marcle, Herefordshire, HR8 2NS.

Councillor AM Atkinson, Personal, Two of the objectors are customers of the Councillor.

9. DMS/111132/F - Field, The Leys, Lynne Down, Much Marcle, Herefordshire, HR8 2NS.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor knows two of the objectors.

9. DMS/111132/F - Field, The Leys, Lynne Down, Much Marcle, Herefordshire, HR8 2NS.

Councillor J Hardwick, Personal, The Councillor knows two of the objectors.

11. DMS/111414/FH & DMS/111415/L - Edde Cross House, Edde Cross Street, Ross On Wye, Herefordshire, HR9 7BZ.

Councillor PA Andrews, Personal, The applicants are friends of the Councillor.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2011.

Councillor DW Greenow requested that the minutes be amended in respect of minute number 38 as he had stated that he knew two of the objectors to the application.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the amendment detailed above.

No announcements were made.

Development of grass and all weather sports pitches, clubhouse, indoortraining building, car parking and landscaping supported by enabling residential development of 190 units

Approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation, subject to there being no further representations raising new material planning considerations received by the end of the consultation period.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.  In addition, the case officer recommended a further revision to last two sentences of the first reason for refusal which was changed to read:

It is considered the development will be visually intrusive, will result in the permanent loss of a significant area of orchard which is a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat, and will adversely erode the landscape character of the site and setting of the city.  As such the development is contrary to policies S7, LA2, LA3, NC6, H7, and RST 10 of the UDP and advice within PPS7 and PPS9.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Townson, representing Hampton Bishop Parish Council, and Mr McLellan and Mr Keme, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Griffiths, the applicant, spoke in support.

Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, thanked the case officer for a detailed report and reserved his right to address the committee until after the debate had taken place.

Members opened the debate by thanking the case officer for producing a thorough report. It was also noted that there had been a great deal of useful and detailed additional information circulated to members by all parties involved. It was accepted that the application was finely balanced between the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan policies and the housing needs of the County. The benefits to Hereford Rugby Club were also noted.

Members discussed the concerns of the local residents in respect of flooding at Hampton Bishop. It was noted that a great deal of work had been undertaken to address the flooding issue in the area and that the proposed development would not exacerbate the situation. It was also noted that due to the proposed layout of the site the housing element of the application would be closer to Tupsley than Hampton Bishop and should therefore not be considered as development in open countryside.

Members also discussed the orchard. It was noted that 60% of the orchard was being retained which was welcomed. Members also noted that UDP policies LA2 and LA3 had been quoted in the officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application. Members noted that the orchard was not protected and could be removed at any time by the land owner if he so wished. Members felt that the provision of a section 106 agreement could provide more certainty over the protection of the orchard.

In respect of housing the committee noted that there were over 5000 homeless people within the county and that there was a need for 1884 new homes in Hereford City alone. Members felt that the specification of the homes to sustainable level 4 was welcomed and also noted that there was an acceptable level of affordable homes within the development. Members also noted that the revised scheme included a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Construction of a shared footway/cycleway from Outfall Works Road inTupsley through Rotherwas Industrial Estate to the B4399 Holme Lacy Road at Sink Green including a new bridge over the River Wye.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Green, representing Dinedor Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Palmer, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support.

The Democratic Services Officer reported the receipt of an email from Councillor Sinclair-Knipe confirming that he was in agreement with the views expressed by Dinedor Parish Council.

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

·         The application was the first phase of a larger application.

·         The comments from the Parish Council needed to be addressed.

·         Could risk losing funding by deferring the application.

·         Been involved with the steering group as the local ward member for some time.

·         The consultation exercise had been extensive including an open day and various presentations.

·         The committee should support the application.

The debate was opened with a Member speaking in support of the application. Some concerns were raised in respect of possible crime and antisocial behaviour associated with the underpass and it was agreed that the safety of the public was paramount. Another point that was raised was a possible contribution from the applicant to assist with secure cycle storage at Rotherwas. The final point that was raised was in respect of the removal and possible translocation of the hedgerow.

However another Member expressed concerns in respect of the issues raised by the neighbouring Parish Councils regarding safety concerns at the eastern exit of the proposed route onto the B4399. It was felt that a site visit may benefit members in making a judgement on the highway, pedestrian and cyclist safety issued raised.

In response to the initial points raised by the committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposals would include cycle parking, benches and public art along the route. He added that translocation of the hedgerow could be considered although the quality of the existing hedge was deemed to be fairly low. In respect of the safety issues, he agreed that the exit point at the eastern end of the route was a concern and that it had been addressed in condition 19 of the recommendation. He added that the exit would not be operational until the safety works were carried out and that a scheme was currently being designed to alleviate the concerns.

A motion for a site inspection was seconded and a vote was taken. The motion was lost and the committee therefore continued to debate the application.

Members continued to speak in support of the application and felt that the proposed route would be an asset to the city. It was noted that any deferral of the application could jeopardise the funding of the route. Members added that the provision of secure cycle routes was paramount to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller siteincluding siting of one mobile home, touring caravan, shed and new access.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Team Leader (South) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

He also gave further details regarding the outcome of the previous appeal relating to the site. He advised Members that there were 4 key considerations in the Inspectors decision, these related to: sustainability; the impact on the landscape character; the impact on the setting of Gamage Farmhouse; and the impact on biodiversity.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Morgan, representing Much Marcle Parish Council, and Mr Roskill, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Baines, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, advised Members that his comments from the last meeting still stood and that he had serious concerns regarding the sustainability and highway safety of the proposed site.

Members opened the debate by speaking in support of the application. It was noted that a site inspection had been undertaken the previous day which had been well attended and was beneficial to members when making a judgement in respect of the site. Concerns were expressed in respect of the proposed new access with members considering the existing access to be acceptable. It was also noted that the metal railings bordering the highway should be retained for highway safety reasons. Members felt that the applicants had acted responsibly throughout the application process and should be commended.

There were further comments in support of the application however there were still concerns in respect of the sustainability of the site. It was noted that the nearest small settlement was Much Marcle, which was located 2.4km away from the site along an unlit road with a sporadic bus service.

Members went on to discuss issues of concern in respect of the application and noted that the proposed hedgerow planting would take a considerable amount of time to reach maturity. It was also noted that the application site was in the setting of a listed building. In reference to the policy issues the Committee were of the opinion that the key policies related to Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S3, S6, DR4, DR6 and H12. The impact on the landscape was also discussed with the general view being that it could not be mitigated through screening.

Members did note that there was still a shortage of traveller sites within the county but felt that the proposed site was not acceptable.

In response to a question regarding maximum caravan sizes, the Team Leader (South) advised Members that under the 1966 Caravan Sites Act a caravan could be a maximum of 60 x 20 feet.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation was lost and the resolution detailed below was agreed.

RESOLVED

THAT the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The provision of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To demolish existing dormer bungalow and replace with highly energy efficient and sustainable 4 bedroom house.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Ashton, representing Colwall Parish Council, and Mr Pile, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Bradley, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor CNH Attwood, the local ward member, stated that he was pleased that the application had been bought before the Planning Committee due to the local interest it had generated.

Members discussed the application and noted that the existing bungalow was of little architectural merit. They noted that Colwall benefitted from various types of dwellings and felt that the proposed application was acceptable.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised members that the proposed dwelling was 6 metres away from the western boundary and 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. He also added that the footprint off the proposed dwelling was similar to the existing one although it was set approximately 4 metres further back on the site.

RESOLVED

With respect to DMN/111429/F 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.         I51 Details of slab levels

5.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

6.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

7.         F16 No new windows in specified elevation

8.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

9.         H08 Access Closure

10.       H27 Parking for site operatives

INFORMATIVES:

1.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

2.         N14 Party Wall Act 1996

3.         HN01 Mud on highway

4.         HN05 Works within the highway

5.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

6.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

With respect to DMN/111430/C that Conservation Area Consent for demolition in a Conservation Area be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         D01 Time limit for commencement (Listed Building Consent)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         No demolition on site whatsoever shall take place until a suitable contract has been formally agreed with a developer for the re-development of the site in accordance with a development scheme granted planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.  Details of this formal agreement shall first be submitted to and be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority prior to any demolition whatsoever.

Reason:  To ensure that a suitable re-development of the site is approved prior to demolition in order to protect the visual amenities and character of the Conservation Area and in accordance with Policy HBA7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of Conservation Area Consent

Proposed replacement garden room, balcony over new garden room, existing steel window replaced with double doors opening onto the balcony.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Team Leader (South) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor G Lucas, one of the local ward members, advised the Committee that the application would improve the existing dwelling.

RESOLVED

With respect to DMS/111414/FH that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

INFORMATIVE:

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

With respect to DMS111415/L that listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         D01 Time limit for commencement

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         D02 Approval of details

4.         D04 Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

INFORMATIVE:

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

Date of next site inspection -  13 September 2011

Date of next meeting -            14 September 2011