Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, Brig P Jones CBE, JLV Kenyon, G Lucas and FM Norman.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Rone, AM Atkinson, JD Woodward, RB Hamilton and AJ Hempton-Smith attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors DW Greenow, Brig P Jones CBE, JLV Kenyon, G Lucas and FM Norman.

9. DMS/112616/F - 44 Tower Road, Hereford, HR4 0LF.

Councillor PA Andrews, Personal, Resident of Tower Road.

12. DMS/112197/F - Oldstone Farm, Fownhope, Hereford, HR1 4PJ.

Councillor J Hardwick, Prejudicial, Co-owner of the property.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2011.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that his comments in respect of the appeals information had been omitted from the minutes. It was agreed that these comments would be added prior to the minutes being approved as correct record.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the amendment detailed above.

There were no announcements.

Councillor RI Matthews requested clarification in respect of costs paid, and received, by the Council in respect of appeals. The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that over the last 12 months the Council had been awarded costs on 4 occasions and had been ordered to pay costs on 3 occasions. He added that the costs were still being negotiated so no detailed figures could be given.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be noted.

To update the Committee in respect of Planning Enforcement Performance for the period from 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2011.

In response to a question the Team Leader – Enforcement advised Members that unauthorised operational development related to a number of different circumstances including sheds, garages and extensions constructed without planning permission and development taking place after the permission had expired. In respect of a question regarding common breaches he added that these usually related to applicants failing to submit more details as required or breaching planning conditions.

Members also discussed areas of enforcement including instances where it was not expedient for the Council to take action, it was confirmed that this usually occurred when there was either no harm, or minimal harm as a result of the breach.

The Committee felt that it would be beneficial for the enforcement report to contain an additional column with figures for the previous 6 month period.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be noted.

Site for development of five houses.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

Park Hall was once a successful entertainment venue but it had now become an eyesore.

·         The lack of affordable housing was regrettable.

·         The application should be supported subject to the conditions recommended by the Principal Planning Officer.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the site was derelict and had become an eyesore. The development of 5 dwellings was welcomed although they had serious concerns in respect of further development on the site. They also noted that a public footpath ran across the site and requested that this be protected.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised the Committee that the applicant would be advised that the Council would be resisting development on other parts of the site since this would form part of the reason for granting planning permission.

In response to a question regarding Tree Preservation Orders, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the issue regarding the protection of the trees was addressed through a suitable condition but that he would look into the issue further to ensure that all trees worthy of preservation were protected.

The neighbouring ward member echoed the Traffic Manager’s concerns in respect of visibility and requested that a speed survey be undertaken.

Councillor JF Knipe was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         That there was a public house, shop, 2 schools, and cricket ground all within walking distance of the site.

·         That the committees concerns regarding additional development on the site was shared.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters

4.         A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters

5.         H04 Visibility over frontage

6.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

7.         G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

8.         G07 Protection of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order

9.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

10.       G14 Landscape management plan

11.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

12.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

13.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

14.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

Informatives:

1.         HN24 Drainage other than via highway system

2.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

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

Demolition of existing bungalow and garage to allow for redevelopment comprising 4 no. residential flats with access, car parking, bin / cycle stores, landscaping and other associated works.

Refused contrary to 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 Mrs Lilley, representing some of the residents od Tower Road, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Shaw, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         Councillor SM Michael, the other local ward member, could not be present due to teaching commitments.

·         The previous reasons for refusal outlined at 3.3 and 3.4 of the officer’s report were still valid.

·         The development previously for 8 one bedroom dwellings was now for 4 two bedroom dwellings so the capacity had not changed.

·         The Inspector had been concerned in respect of the previous design of the development, the current proposal was still an ‘L’ shaped building.

·         By siting the building further back on the site the impact on the neighbouring residents was increased.

·         If all parking spaces were occupied vehicles would not be able to turn in the parking area and would have to reverse out of the site resulting in a danger to pedestrian safety.

·         The proposal was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, DR2, H13 and H14 due to the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents and the impact on the character and appearance of the location.

The debate was opened with Members noting that the local community did not approve of the current planning application on the site. It was also noted that the neighbouring residents did not object to development on the site and that they would welcome an application for two modest family homes.

In response to a question regarding the car park at the rear of the proposed development, the Principal Planning Officer advised that cars could enter and exit the site in a forward gear.

The committee noted the recent appeal decision on the site. It was noted that the original proposal of 8 one bedroom units had been reduced to 4 two bedroom units; and it was felt that the applicant had made every effort to address the concerns of the neighbouring residents in respect of overlooking and car parking.

In response to additional questions raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that each dwelling benefitted from a separate entrance, with one entrance to the front of the site and three entrances to the rear; that the bay windows on the first floor could be conditioned to require obscured glazing but that the inspector had not previously had a concern regarding this and that the proposed dwelling was a comparative height to the neighbouring properties.

Members continued to discuss the application as well as the previous appeal decisions in respect of the site. A number of members stated that they could see why the previous appeals had been dismissed but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Retrospective application for change of use on part of land associated with Losito Stud from agricultural to equine use, retrospective application for change of use from agricultural barn to stables.

The application could not be determined by the committee as the applicant had lodged an appeal based on non-determination. The committee debated the application and would have been minded not to support the case officer’s recommendation.

The Team Leader - Enforcement gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He advised the Committee that an appeal had been lodged on the basis of non determination and therefore the application could not be determined. It was noted that the Committee could delegate a decision to approve the application subject to the withdrawal of the appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Miss Harris, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The application site fell within the neighbouring ward, Llangarron.

·         At paragraph 6.7 the report states that the land on the site that did not fall within the application was used solely for grazing, however there were jumps erected in the fields.

·         It was understood that the family had erected the barn on the site.

·         There was a question mark locally as to whether the application site was for equine or agricultural use.

·         It would be best for the inspector to make a decision on the usage as a stud usage would not require permission.

·         The two neighbouring Parish Councils had concerns in respect of the application.

·         The UDP was the key policy in determining the application and the site was outside of the settlement boundary as detailed in that policy.

·         The application should be refused.

The debate was opened with members speaking in support of the application. It was noted that the agricultural building was already on the site when it came into the applicant’s ownership. The issue of the horse jumps in the grazing area was also discussed with it being considered that studs and mares on the site would still need to be exercised and there was therefore a need for the wooden jumps. The Transport Managers comments were noted as well as the Ross Ramblers, who did not object to the application. In summing up it was felt that the proposed application would not be a blot on the landscape but would in fact enable an equine business to function properly.

In response to a question in response to a question regarding the building on the site, the Team Leader - Enforcement advised the Committee that it was already on the site when the land was gifted to the applicant by her family.

Other members had a different opinion in respect of the application and felt that it could not be supported. The comments of the two nearby Parish Councils were noted and concerns were expressed in respect of the highways issues. Members felt that the retrospective nature of the application was regrettable although they noted that this was not a material planning consideration. Members also discussed the footpath that ran across the site; they were of the opinion that the footpath should be protected through appropriate conditions. Some concern was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Proposed renovations and extensions to Oakwood and demolition of existing garage and erection of replacement garage, erection of two detached dwellings and ancillary garages formation of new vehicular access on land rear of Oakwood and Bridge House, demolition of garage at Bridge House and erection of replacement garage.

The committee delegated approval to officer’s named in the ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’ subject to the relocation of one of the proposed dwellings.

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 Gwilliam, representing Mr Powell, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hawes, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The site visit had been beneficial and helped to highlight the concerns raised in respect of the access.

·         The proposed access was at the narrowest point of the road

·         There was also a concern in respect of flood water if the kerb was removed.

·         The existing access was better.

In response to a question by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the grass track provided an access to the applicant’s tennis court and would serve no other purpose. He also advised that the site was within the settlement boundary so any further applications, if forthcoming, would have to be considered on their merits. In respect of the concerns regarding the removal of the kerb he confirmed that the neighbouring property had a dropped kerb and this had not caused a problem in respect of flooding.

In response to a specific question regarding a highway drain the Principal Planning Officer advised that it would be reasonable to request a highway drain through a suitable condition.

Members discussed the application and were of the opinion that the proposed access was acceptable and that with the provision of a highway drain the concerns in respect of flooding could also be addressed. However they did have concerns regarding the close proximity of one of the proposed dwellings to a nearby cattle shed. It was felt that the application would be more acceptable if the dwelling was rotated 90 degrees.

Councillor JW Hope MBE was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and felt that the application should be refused.

RESOLVED

That officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be permitted to grant planning permission in respect of application DMN/112363/F subject to the relocation of the dwelling adjacent to the cattle barn and subject to the following conditions:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of one year from the date of this permission

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to reflect the decision of the Local Planning Authority on 4th March 2009 to suspend (effective from 1st April 2009) the requirements of the Authority's 'Planning Obligations' Supplementary Planning Document (February 2008) in relation to residential developments of five dwellings or less.

2.         Before any other development hereby approved is commenced, the construction of the new vehicular access shall be carried out in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Proposed conversion of and alterations to a range of period barns to create 2 residential dwellings.

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.

The Committee felt that the application provided an acceptable use for redundant agricultural buildings.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission) (1 Year)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

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

4.         D05 Details of external joinery finishes

5.         D09 Details of rooflights

6.         D10 Specification of guttering and downpipes

7.         F07 Domestic use only of garage/store

8.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

9.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights Part 2 Class A and Part 40 Classes A   - I

10.       Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the section of the modern agricultural building shown on drawing number 1462.08 to be removed shall be demolished and the waste materials removed from the site.

Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans and to protect the general character and amenities of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

11.       Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the garaging/store shown on drawing number 1462.08 shall be completed and made available for use.

Reason: To minimise the likelihood of indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety and to conform with Policy T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

12.       G10 Landscaping scheme

13.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

14.       G12 Hedgerow planting

15.       H27 Parking for site operatives

16.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

17.       H12 Parking and turning - single house

18.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist's report dated December 2010 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  Prior to commencement of the development, a full working method statement should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

Prior to commencement of development, the local planning authority shall be notified that an appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works has been appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

Reasons:

To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC!, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

To comply with Herefordshire Council's Policies NC8 and NC9 in relation to Natural Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and the NERC Act 2006.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

2.         HN05 Works within the highway

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

Date of next site inspection -  13 December 2011

Date of next meeting -            14 December 2011