Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, J Hardwick, G Lucas and RI Matthews.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson, PJ McCaull, JA Hyde and GA Powell attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors BA Durkin, J Hardwick, G Lucas and RI Matthews.

The Committee sought advice as to whether the possession of a storecard would require them to declare a personal interest in respect of agenda item 7. The Locum Lawyer – Planning and Regulatory went through the tests for Personal Interests, and advised that although it was for each individual member to decide if they had a personal or prejudicial interest in respect of each agenda item, her advice was that the possession of a storecard would not result in any interest being needed to be declared.

The following declarations of interest were made:

7. N113052/F - LAND AT GALEBREAKER HOUSE, LEADON WAY, LEDBURY, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR8 2SS.

Councillor EPJ Harvey, Personal, The Councillor collected data for a food facts study in 2010.

8. S113380/F - HILLCREST, GORSLEY, ROSS ON WYE, HR9 7SW.

Councillor AM Atkinson, Personal, The Councillor is a member of Gorsley Baptist Church.

8. S113380/F - HILLCREST, GORSLEY, ROSS ON WYE, HR9 7SW.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor is a member of Gorsley Baptist Church.

10. S113513/CD - WATERFIELD ROAD, HEREFORD, HR2 7EL.

Councillor PJ Edwards, Personal, The Councillor is a member of the Country Park Management Steering Group.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2012.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor AJ Hempton-Smith as a Member of the Committee, noting that he had replaced Councillor JLV Kenyon. He also thanked Councillor Kenyon for his involvement and input into the Planning Committee.

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a superstore class a1 petrol filling station, car parking, biomass boiler, landscaping and associated works.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. During the presentation he covered a number of issues, including:

·         the history of the market town;

·         the impact the proposed store would have on the vitality and viability of the town centre;

·         the impact the proposed store would have on the heritage assets of Ledbury;

·         issues in respect of transportation and sustainability;

·         the loss of employment land as a result of the application.

Members were advised of an amendment to the second reason for refusal detailed within the Officer’s recommendation of refusal of the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Conway, representing Ledbury Town Council, and Mr Hadley and Mrs Crowe, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Adenmosun, Mr Ashton and Mrs White, spoke in support.

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

·         The application was a result of two businesses, one national and one local, working together to create jobs in Ledbury.

·         Ledbury had the fastest population growth of any town in Herefordshire.

·         Local residents needed an alternative to the local shopping structure currently available.

·         The sequential testing had highlighted the unacceptable nature of the alternative sites.

·         The lawnside site was currently the location for the fire station, the youth centre and the swimming pool, these would all need to be relocated.

·         The lawnside site would also result in a negative impact on the town centre due to its impact on Bye Street.

·         There were also concerns regarding eh other proposed site from the sequential test as Tesco’s would have to shut down for 2 years during the redevelopment.

·         There was sufficient employment land in Ledbury without the inclusion of the proposed application site. The loss of the employment land was countered by the increased employment as a result of the store.

·         There was no risk of flooding on the site.

·         There was some indication of slow worms on the site although they had not been sighted during the Ecological Survey.

·         The site had good vehicular access.

Councillor EPJ Harvey, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application had been debated at length through social media networks as well as views being expressed through more traditional means of petitions and letters.

·         Ledbury was a small market town with a number of independent retailers in the town centre.

·         Local residents expected to travel further afield for their additional shopping requirements.

·         The application needed to comply with planning policies and it clearly failed in a number of areas.

·         The proposes development was too large and was located in the wrong place.

·         The application was no different to the Tesco’s application which was recently recommended for refusal and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.

·         The granting of the application would result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

Erection of two dwellings with attached garaging.

The application was approved contrary to 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, Mrs Foley, representing Linton Parish Council, and Mr Pearce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The site had been identified as suitable for housing development.

·         The site was not within a conservation area and was not listed.

·         Gorsley benefitted from a wide range of housing types and the proposed development would not be out of keeping.

·         The site already benefitted from planning permission for a larger, single dwelling.

·         The applicant was of the opinion that two, smaller, more affordable dwellings would be of more benefit to the community.

·         21 letter of support had been received from the local community.

·         Both houses would have gardens and garages so could not realistically be classed as overdeveloped.

·         The proposed development would not result in any issues of overlooking for neighbouring residents.

·         The proposed dwellings would be finished in similar materials to the nearby dwellings mitigating any impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Members opened the debate by discussing the benefits of the proposed application. It was noted that the Parish Council and local residents were in support of the application and that two smaller dwellings would benefit the local community more than a single larger house. It was also noted that any issues of overlooking had been mitigated through the design of the dwellings. Members felt that the site visit had proved extremely beneficial in being able to make a judgement in respect of the application.

Some members did however have concerns in respect of the proposed development. It was noted that the new dwellings were higher and considerably wider than the previous proposed single dwelling on the site. Some members felt that this would clearly lead to over intensification on the site. It was further noted that the development would result in a 50% larger footprint on the site.

In response to a question regarding the lack of a Section 106 agreement in respect of the application, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning confirmed that as the proposal was for less than 5 dwellings a Section 106 agreement could not be requested.

Members discussed the possibility of a third bedroom being added to the dwelling at a later date and whether this would require an additional planning permission. The Head of Neighbourhood Planning confirmed that if the application was granted it would be granted in accordance with the supplied plans.

Councillor H Bramer was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening marks and asked that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning noted that the Committee appeared minded to approve the application and requested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Construction of carpark and footway / cycleway off Waterfield Road for the Belmont Haywood Country Park.

The application was 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. She advised the Committee that an additional conditions was detailed in the update sheet and requested that it be included in any resolution.

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

·         The application had attracted 55 letters of objection from local residents.

·         The application would result in antisocial behavior taking place in the proposed car park.

·         The fishermen would not use the proposed car park due to the distance from the pool, Haywood Lane would be a better location.

·         The amenity of the local residents would be harmed by the application.

·         A petition containing 44 signatures had been received.

·         West Mercia Police’s report had been omitted from the officer’s report.

·         The application should be refused.

Councillor AN Bridges, one of the other local ward members, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application had raised a great deal of debate and concern in the local area.

·         West Mercia Police had concerns in respect of the application.

·         The car park needed to be secured at night so the additional conditions referred to in the update report was welcomed.

·         Could the section 106 agreement secure funds for CCTV in the car park.

·         The proposed car park was too far for the fishermen to use, they would still park on Haywood Lane.

·         A second car park at Haywood Lane would be welcomed.

Councillor PJ Edwards, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         He had been involved in the initial setting up of the Country Park some years ago.

·         The Country Park was nearly completed with the help of the section 106 agreement from the nearby housing development which was also nearing completion.

·         The population of the South Wye area was approximately 10000.

·         The additional condition securing the car park at night was welcomed.

·         The management plan was also welcomed as was the suggestion of CCTV on the site.

·         The application should be approved.

In response to the points raised by the Local Ward Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the local policing team had been contacted but had not responded as all correspondence in these circumstances comes from the police head office. She added that the Parks and Countryside team were in regular contact with the local policing team. In respect of CCTV on the site she added that it may be something to consider at a later date if there were issues at the site and CCTV was deemed necessary. It was felt that engagement with the parks and countryside team would be a more suitable route to assess any future CCTV requirements instead of a planning condition.

Members discussed the application and had concerns in respect of possible antisocial behaviour in the area. It was hoped that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Proposed replacement of conservatory with dining room.

The application was approved contrary to 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 Williams, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

One of the local ward members, Councillor A Seldon, could not be present at the meeting but had prepared a written statement in support of the application which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

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

·         The application would enhance the building.

·         The building could no longer be deemed an agricultural building in terms of Policy HBA12 and HBA13.

·         The dwelling needed to be allowed to be a domestic dwelling, the proposed application would allow this.

·         Planning policies needed to evolve and move with the times.

·         Note the concerns in respect of the scale of the development, could this be negotiated?

Members discussed the application and noted that there had been no pre-application discussions between the applicant and the planning department. Members discussed the possibility of deferring the application to allow further discussions regarding the scale of the proposed development.

One Member felt that the link between the two units had already been established through the current conservatory building. It was further considered that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and should be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. Other Members agreed that the proposed link building would improve the connection between the two buildings and would not be out of keeping with the existing dwelling.

The Development Manager – Northern Localities, advised that the application was in conflict with current planning policies and that it would impact on the character and appearance of the area. He added that a link building could have been permitted if it had been smaller but that due to the scale of the proposed development it should be refused in accordance with UDP policies HBA12 and HBA13.

Members felt that the proposed development was solely a replacement of the existing link building which was currently in the form of a conservatory and was not an extension, or a substantial alteration, and so would retain the qualities of the existing building, and would therefore be in accordance with Policies HBA12 and HBA13. They also added that the proposed link building would improve the connection between the two buildings, would enhance the buildings’ rural character, the design would fit in with the rural location, and so the visual impact would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building and its rural setting, and would not be out of keeping with the existing dwelling.

They felt that the proposed materials were in keeping with the existing materials and this could be secured by a condition in any event.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

To consider the adoption of a Single Enforcement and Prosecution Policy for all relevant activities undertaken by Herefordshire Council.

The Regulatory Services Programme Manager presented the report and gave members a detailed background in respect of the proposed single enforcement policy. He advised that the report had recently been to the Regulatory Committee and would be going before Cabinet in late March.

The Committee welcomed the joint working referred to in the policy and felt that a more transparent approach to enforcement was welcomed.

RESOLVED

THAT:

(a)        the principle of a Single Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is supported;

(b)       the detail contained within a Single Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is supported.

Date of next site inspection -  13 March 2012

Date of next meeting -            14 March 2012