Apologies were received from Councillors JG Lester and MD Lloyd-Hayes.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Rone and JLV Kenyon attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors JG Lester and MD Lloyd Hayes.

7. S111970/F - THE MILL RACE PUB, WALFORD,  ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5QS.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor holds a business account with one of the objectors.

Councillor JG Jarvis, Personal, The Councillor frequents the premise as a local resident.

Councillor JLV Kenyon, Personal, The Councillor owns a brewery who previously supplied the premise.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, The Councillor is the Vice-Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Board.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2012.

Councillor Watts requested that the wording ‘to survive’ be added to bullet point 3 of his closing statement in respect of minute number 140.

In response to a question, the Democratic Services Officer confirmed that there was no constitutional requirement for local ward members to submit their comments in writing but that they did act as a useful ‘aide memoire’ in preparing the minutes.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed the return of Councillor Lucas to the Planning Committee after a period of absence due to ill health.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised Members of a recent judgement in the Court of Appeal relating to a planning application at Sun Cottage, Garway. He advised that the Court concluded that the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for the grant of the permission. The Council was also required to pay the claimant’s costs although the planning permission itself was not quashed. It was therefore requested that a training session be arranged for all Planning Committee members and regular substitutes to address the issues raised by the case.

Proposed extension to existing pub with 10 bed accommodation and 2 staff dwellings.

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, Ms Coombes, 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 Leader of the Council speaking in his capacity as the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application related to a popular public house which fell within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         There was not a shop in the village although the public house did have planning consent to open a small shop on the site.

·         There was a village hall nearby which was often oversubscribed so the meeting facilities applied for would be welcomed.

·         There was a need to improve tourism facilities throughout the County, the application would result in improved facilities for visitors to the area.

·         The staff quarters applied for only resulted in a net increase of 1 room.

·         The applicants had always worked closely with the local community; this had led to a number of previous applications being withdrawn.

·         A number of the local residents had supported the application. There was also a petition of support within the public house which had gained a number of signatures.

·         The main issue seemed to be around the site being deemed as in open countryside due to the settlement boundary falling within Coughton and not Walford.

·         The forthcoming Parish Plan would be including this area for housing development as the Parish Council felt that it was not within the open countryside.

The debate was opened with a Member discussing the merits of the application. It was noted that the application was in compliance with Policies RST1 and RST2. It was felt that there was a functional need for staff accommodation on the site to service the proposed additional accommodation block which meant the application was also in accordance with policy H7 of the UDP. It was also noted that the local residents would not be adversely affected due to the proposed screening.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) noted that a motion had been tabled to approve the application contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. She requested confirmation from the Member who had moved the motion that they were of the opinion that the application was in accordance with Policy H7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan as there was, in their opinion, a functional need for the staff accommodation.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) concurred with the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) and stated that Policy H7 of the UDP was key in determining the application and that Members had to decide whether they were of the opinion that the staff accommodation was necessary on the site.

Members confirmed that the accommodation was required and that the functional need was met, and therefore the application complied with Policy H7,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Erection of retirement living housing for the elderly, (Category 11 type accommodation, communal facilities, landscaping and car parking).

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda for further discussions between the applicant and the Planning Department.

Change of use from 3 bedroom house in to two number two bedroom flats and internal alterations to second floor flat.

The application was 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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors FM Norman and Brig. P Jones CBE, the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was welcomed by the local residents.

·         All issues had been addressed through appropriate conditions.

·         The application would benefit the town of Leominster.

Members noted that the application had only come before the Committee as it had been submitted by a Council Officer employed in a politically restricted post. It was further noted that the application would have been approved under delegated powers had this not been the case.

Members noted that the site was opposite a busy car park on one of the main entrances to Leominster and they felt that the proposed renovation of the building would be an improvement to the listed building as it had fallen into a state of disrepair.

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.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

4.         F13 Restriction on separate sale

5.         H10 Parking - single house

6.         H15 Turning and parking: change of use - commercial

7.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

INFORMATIVES:

1.         N16 Welsh Water Informative

Approval of Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

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

2.         D05 Details of external joinery finishes

3.         D10 Specification of guttering and downpipes

4.         Prior to commencement of this Listed Building Consent, a schedule of remaining doors, architraves, skirtings, fireplaces and old floor boards with details of their retention, protection and re-use shall be submitted to the LPA for its written approval, and the subsequent works shall proceed in accordance with the details agreed.

Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this Grade II listed building through the retention, protection, and appropriate re-use of The interior fittings which are a significant part of the special interest of the building

5.         Prior to commencement of this Listed Building Consent, full written details and appropriate plans showing of the routes and external termini of mechanical, plumbing and electrical services shall be submitted to the LPA for its written approval, and the subsequent works shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this Grade II listed building and the wider streetscene.

Variation of condition 20 of planning permission DCSE2008/0095/F regarding roundabout junction delivery.

The application was 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. He advised Members that 2 of the conditions had been reworded and that full details of the amendments were contained within the update sheet.

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

·         The application relating to the housing development had previously been considered by the Southern Area Planning Committee.

·         The Members of the Committee were very clear at that time that they were happy to grant permission as long as the roundabout was in place first.

·         Access to the site was the main issue due to the high speed of traffic along the highway.

·         The residents of Chatsworth Close were concerned about the proposed access for construction traffic.

·         Persimmon Homes had recently recorded profits of £148,000,000 so cost should not be the primary issue.

·         The roundabout was a small cost but would protect the amenity of the nearby residents.

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

·         The other local ward member’s comments were echoed.

·         Initially the application had seemed reasonable.

·         Traffic travelled at high speeds and therefore safety was a concern.

·         HGV vehicles would have great difficulty entering the site through the proposed access.

·         The proposed access was too close to the neighbouring dwellings and would affect their amenity.

The Committee discussed the application and voiced their concerns in respect of it. They felt that the impact on the residents of Chatsworth Close was unacceptable. They also had concerns in respect of issues of highway safety due to vehicles entering the site onto from a fast flowing road.

Regarding the highways issues, Members were of the opinion that it was unreasonable to expect HGV vehicles to pass the entrance of the site before being forced to use the roundabout at the bottom of the road before entering the site from a southern location. It was further noted that HGV vehicles would find it difficult to manoeuvre the roundabout. Members felt that this condition would be extremely difficult to enforce or police.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised Members that the possible loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents appeared to be a reasonable and sound reason for refusing the application however he had concerns in respect of refusing the application on highway grounds due to neither the Traffic Manager or Highways Agency objection to the application.

Following the advice the Member who had moved the original motion amended it to remove the reason for refusal relating to highway concerns.

Members continued to discuss the impact the application would have on the neighbouring residents, it was noted that the proposed hoardings looked inadequate and would offer little reduction in noise from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Date of next site inspection -  3 April 2012

Date of next meeting -            4 April 2012