Apologies were received from Councillors RI Matthews and GR Swinford.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JF Knipe and CNH Attwood attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors RI Matthews and GR Swinford.

7. N111899/O - PORTHOUSE FARM, TENBURY ROAD, BROMYARD, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor JG Lester, Personal, The Councillor is Chair of Governers for Queen Elizabeth Humanities College.

Councillor PJ Edwards, Personal, The Councillor was Cabinet Member during the UDP consultation process.

10. N120045/F - 54-56 NEW ROAD, BROMYARD, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR7 4AJ.

Councillor JG Lester, Prejudicial, The site in question is next door to the Councillors home and will provide him with two parking spaces..

11. N113363/F - KINGSLAND FIRE STATION, ARBOUR LANE, KINGSLAND, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 9RZ.

Councillor BA Durkin, Prejudicial, The Councillor has carried out work for the fire authority.

Councillor Brig P Jones CBE, Prejudicial, The Councillor is a member of the Fire Authority.

Councillor DW Greenow, Prejudicial, The Councillor is a member of the Fire Authority.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, Prejudicial, The Councillor is a member of the Fire Authority.

Councillor PJ Watts, Prejudicial, The Councillor is a member of the Fire Authority.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2012.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 March be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Democratic Services Officer advised Members that they should discard any correspondence that may have been handed to them from the public gallery prior to the meeting. He added that all correspondence from the public had to be received by midday on the day prior to the meeting to be considered.

The Assistant Director gave Members a brief presentation in respect of the recently announced National Planning Policy Framework in advance of the seminar scheduled to take place on 24 April 2012. He advised members that the NPPF applied from its date of publication and drew their attention to paragraphs 210, 211 and 214 which stressed that the current development plan, the UDP, remained the key policy and should not be considered as ‘out of date’ during the transitional period.

An outline application for the erection of up to 127 dwellings (35% to be affordable) with all matters except access to be reserved for future consideration.

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. Members were advised that the update sheet contained details of minor amendments to some of the conditions as well as confirmation that the request for a larger contribution towards CCTV as part of the Section 106 Agreement had been agreed with the applicant.

He advised Members that since the application was deferred in February 2012 a noise report had been requested and that this had been completed by RPS and was attached to the committee report as an appendix. He summarised the findings of the report and advised Members that RPS had found the application to be acceptable subject to the provision of an acoustic fence.

Finally the Principal Planning Officer advised Members of the recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework and its impact on the proposed application. He confirmed that the NPPF had made no change to the Unitary Development Plan but stressed the importance of it in determining planning applications.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davis, representing Bromyard & Winslow Town Council, and Mr Whittaker, speaking on behalf of some of the local businesses who had objected to the application, both spoke in objection to the application and Mr Woolton, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

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 previous debate prior to the deferral focused on noise, the number of dwellings, and the loss of employment land.

·         The noise survey vindicated the concerns raised as further measures had now been recommended. The previous recommendation was obviously therefore not acceptable.

·         The application still posed an economic threat to the future of Bromyard.

·         The proposed application was still contrary to UDP policies S1, S2, DR1, DR2, DR13 and LA2.

·         58 events over the short assessment period exceeded 60db.

·         The acoustic fence stood at 6m high, 1.5 times higher than a double decker bus.

·         A structure of this size could not be mitigated into the landscape.

·         How will the fence look in several years time, who will maintain it?

·         The closest dwellings to the industrial units will still need their windows shut at night to avoid sleep disturbance due to noise.

·         A letter had been received from a Senior Planning Officer stating that the employment land at Linton could not be delivered.

·         The inspector’s decision at the time of the land allocation was flawed as he did not know then that the employment land at Linton was undeliverable.

·         If the application is approved there will be no employment land in Bromyard.

·         Members should look to the emerging LDF and Localism Act in making their decision.

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

·         In 2006-2007 in the draft stages of the UDP the site at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

Retrospective planning application for the retention of an existing bund and its remodelling with appropriate engineering works and landscaping of the remodelled bund.

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 the application was linked to, but not dependant on, the previous agenda item.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davis, representing Bromyard & Winslow Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

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

·         The Town Council had regularly requested updates in respect of enforcement action since the first communication in April 2006.

·         Would the bund actually now be required as the housing on the site had been refused?

·         The bund was actually a spoil heap of construction waste and should be treated accordingly.

·         The bund should be processed on site to ensure that the material used for it is not contaminated or unsafe.

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

·         The Town Council had raised an objection as soon as the bund had been erected.

·         The structure did not have planning permission and should therefore be classed as unlawful.

·         Should be treated in the same manner as fly tipping.

·         The makeup of the bund was unknown, with no confirmation as to where the soil had come from.

·         The soil should be processed and distributed evenly on the site.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that it did not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework recently outlined by the government. It was further considered that the approval of the application would result in a better regulation of the bund.

In response to a number of issues raised, the Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that if the soil was processed on the site and distributed evenly it would just need to be removed again at a later date. He added that the bund had not been designed as an acoustic buffer but was a landscape buffer. He also stated that the Council’s enforcement team had been monitoring the site which had resulted in the submission of the application the Committee had before them. Finally he stated that it was impossible to trace where the soil had initially come from and that any cost of maintaining the bund would be met by the landowner.

The Principal Planning Officer added that the remodelling of the bund would identify any contaminated waste within the bund. She added that the contamination report submitted with the application was acceptable.

Councillors A Seldon and JG Lester, the local ward members, were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and requested that the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

2.         Within 9 months of the date of this permission, and in any case before the bund remodelling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Demolition of galvanised drill tower and concrete base, removal of metal fence, erection of new galvanised steel fence, construction of new kerbed area.   Construction of training tower consisting of three framed storeys and roof.  Construction of new metal clad building to house breathing apparatus facilities accommodation for training cage and for briefing.

The application was deferred for a site inspection.

Prior to the presentation and debate on the item, the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised that after seeking clarification in respect of their declarations of interest, Councillors Lloyd-Hayes, Greenow and Watts had all now declared prejudicial interests as Members of the Fire Authority, and Councillor Durkin as he carried out work for the Fire Authority. It was noted that they had all left the Council Chamber for the duration of the item.

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 Jamieson, representing Mr and Mrs Sharp-Smith who had objected to the application, spoke in objection and Mr Price, on behalf of the applicants, spoke in support.

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

·         The fire service presence was greatly appreciated and valued in Kingsland.

·         Consideration needed to be given to the conservation area and the proximity of the two listed buildings.

·         A site visit would be beneficial.

Members discussed the application and agreed with the local ward member that a site visit would assist them in determining the application.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be adjourned pending a site inspection on the following ground:

1.         The setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered, and cannot reasonably be made without visiting the site in question.

Erection of first floor extension to provide additional bedroom and shower room, erection of single storey extension to provide new entrance lobby and wc and construction of 2 bay carport.

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, Councillor JF Knipe, the local ward member, advised the Committee that the application had not raised any local concerns and should be approved.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised the Committee that paragraph 4.2 of the report stated that comments were awaited from the Transportation Manager, these comments had now been received and no objection to the application was raised.

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.         CBK Restriction of hours during construction

Informative:

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

Proposed replacement of planning permission DMN/103066/F for a new four bedroom detached property with attached garage.

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

The 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, Councillor A Seldon, one of the local ward members, advised the Committee that the only concern he had was a minor issue regarding traffic congestion in Clover Terrace. However he was happy to support the application.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that none of the trees on the site were subject of a tree preservation order and that the landscaping scheme addressed the issue of replacement trees.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission) (one year)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

5.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

6.         G10 Landscaping scheme

7.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

8.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

10.       I17 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

11.       I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

12.       I22 No surface water to public sewer

13.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

Informative:

1.         The proposal has been considered against the site’s location and the character of the surrounding area. As the site is within an established residential area of Bromyard the principle of development is acceptable. The development proposed is identical to that previously approved under application N/103066/F and with no change in Local policy the layout, scale and design of the proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area or on the amenities of nearby residents.

Date of next site inspection -  24 April 2012

Date of next meeting -            25 April 2012