Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, AN Bridges, G Lucas, and GR Swinford.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors TM James and JF Knipe attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors PA Andrews and AN Bridges.

10. N121260CD - GRANGE COURT, PINSLEY ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 8NP.

Councillor Brig P Jones CBE, Disclosable Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a board member for LARC and that this had been declared on his register of interests.

10. N121260CD - GRANGE COURT, PINSLEY ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 8NP.

Councillor RC Hunt, Disclosable Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a board member for LARC and that this had been declared on his register of interests.

12. S121627F - IVY GREEN COTTAGE, ABBEYDORE, HEREFORD.

In accordance with paragraph 5.13.18 of the Council’s Constitution Rebecca Jenman left the room during the consideration of the item as it related to her own planning application.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2012.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements made.

To update the Committee in respect of Planning Enforcement Performance for the period 1 October 2011 – 31 March 2012

The Team Leader (Enforcement) presented the report detailing enforcement action undertaken between October 2011 and March 2012. In response to a question from the Committee he advised that ‘untidy land’ applied to not only land but also buildings that had a detrimental impact on the locality, he added that it was a subjective matter and that there was no strict definition for ‘untidy land’.

In response to a question in respect of staffing levels, the Team Leader confirmed that the enforcement section was operating with a full complement of staff.

One Member of the Committee requested that the Council take a proactive approach to enforcement with closer working with social landlords in respect of untidy gardens and such matters.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be noted.

New building for the care of the elderly mentally infirm (Dementia Unit) providing accommodation for 30 residents.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 106 agreement to tie the proposed building to the existing Pencombe Hall.

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 Mitchell, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Brown, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor A Seldon, one of the local ward members, had advised the Chairman that he could not be present at the meeting but had provided the Democratic Services Officer with a written statement which was read out to the Committee.[Amended at Planning Committee 29 August 2012]

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

·         The proposal was not acceptable due to the scale and mass of the development and the proposed location.

·         The development would result in a dominant and discordant feature in an isolated and unsustainable location.

·         The application was not finely balanced, as suggested in the officer’s report, and it should be refused contrary to the recommendation.

·         Due to the isolated rural location and infrequent bus service the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy CF7.

·         A previous application on the site was refused by Committee in 2007 due to the fact that the site was unsustainable.

·         The application was found to be contrary to Policies S1, S2 and DR7 at that time, the policies all remain and a refusal should be based on those same policies.

·         It could not be guaranteed that either beds or jobs associated with the proposal would go to local people.

·         An application was approved for 40 beds in 2007, which had never been implemented, and surely this proved that there was not a need for such a large number of additional beds in the County.

·         A condition had been recommended limiting the use of the beds to elderly mentally infirm patients, would this be enforceable.

·         The application could not be viewed as an extension as it was a separate self-contained unit which would raise doubts over the future of Pencombe Hall.

·         The proposed development was oversized, overbearing and dominant and did not compliment Pencombe Hall as the proposed finish was completely different to the existing building.

·         The concerns raised by the residents of the neighbouring coach house in respect of light pollution and overlooking should be considered.

·         Landscaping on the site should enhance the proposed development and not try to hide it; if a development has to be hidden is it really acceptable. 

In response to a question from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the previous application on the site, although for outline permission only, was in a similar location to the current proposal but it was larger.

Members discussed the application with a number of the Committee in general agreement with the local ward member. They felt that the proposed development was out of keeping with the existing Pencombe Hall due to its scale, mass and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Residential development comprising of 29 dwellings with associated access, carparking, landscaping and open space.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a Further Information Report at the request of the Head of Neighbourhood Planning and the Monitoring Officer.

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 the Committee that amended plans had been received that addressed the outstanding design and layout matters and the recommendation was therefore amended accordingly.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Jackson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The Parish Council apologised for not being in attendance to speak at the meeting.

·         There were concerns in respect of sewerage issues in the area.

·         The locality had been described as of great archaeological interest in a 1990 survey.

·         The existing foul water system had still not been adopted by Crest Nicholson despite this commitment being made when  their 2009 planning permission was considered by committee.

·         The site was a greenfield site, the Council should look at availability of brownfield sites and more sustainable sites before granting permission on the application site.

·         The Section 106 agreement did not include a contribution to Holmer school or the Wentworth Park play area which was in need of updating.

The Committee opened the debate by discussing their concerns in respect of the application. They discussed the National Planning Policy Framework which required the authority to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as well as a 5% buffer on top of this. However they were of the view that there were other, more suitable, plots of land throughout the county which could fulfil the demand. The Committee felt that developers should investigate the possibility of developing brownfield sites within the city prior to applying for residential development on rural, greenfield sites. They were also of the opinion that the NPPF guidance should not be viewed as an opportunity for developers to expand already substantial housing developments.

They also voiced their concerns in respect of the previous issues of non-compliance in respect of commitments to adopt the existing drainage network.

The Committee continued to debate the application and expressed their concerns in respect of the expansion of an already large development of 300 houses. They had concerns in respect of the impact the application would have on the neighbouring landscape as well as the lack of infrastructure capacity both above and below ground.  In this regard, they also had concerns regarding increased traffic on Roman Road.

In response to a question in respect of the Landscape Officer’s comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the objection related to the landscape character and not visual impact.

The Committee went on to discuss the key policies in respect of the application. They were of the opinion that the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies H7, CF2, DR4 and LA2 and should therefore be refused.

In response to the issues raised in respect of drainage, the Principal Planning Officer advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DMNC/100481/CD regarding boundary wall.

The application was refused contrary to 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. In respect of an issue raised at the site visit attended by members on the previous day, the team Leader advised that the tree referred to by Members was subject of a Tree Preservation Order. He also advised the Committee that the cost of demolishing the existing wall and building a new wall would be £20,000; the cost of stabilising the existing wall would be £13,000; and the cost of erecting a new fence would be £14,000

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Hamilton and Mrs Butler spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hunt, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The site visit undertaken the previous day had been beneficial.

·         The condition was put in place to safeguard the privacy of Mrs Butler and it should be enforced.

·         Mrs Butler had been patient during the works which had been expected to be concluded in August 2011 but were still ongoing.

·         The communications between Council officers did nothing to enhance the Council’s reputation.

The Committee discussed the application and were disappointed that the condition had not been adhered to and was now subject to an application to remove it. They felt that Mrs Butler had been tolerant and patient during the development process and that the Council should honour the existing condition and raise the height of the wall as initially agreed. It was noted that the application related to a £2.9 million development and that the cost of raising the wall was a small fraction of this.

Councillor McCaull was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

·         Grange Court had been moved from Broad Street to its current location and was going to be a major tourist attraction for the County.

·         Mrs Butler previously lived next door to a quiet garden area but this had now been transformed into an area which would attract a high number of visitors.

·         The condition should remain in order to protect the privacy of Mrs Butler.

RESOLVED:

THAT the application be refused as the increase in the height of the wall is required to protect the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring property and the conditions still serves a planning purpose.

Erection of an open fronted single storey double bay garage with adjoining closed storage/workshop bay.

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.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

Reasons for Approval

In reaching this decision the local planning authority had regard to the scale, size and design of the proposed garage building in relation to the host dwelling and its surroundings. The proposed building is not considered to detract from the original building and is in keeping with the overall character of the existing dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies DR1 and H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proposed replacement dwelling.

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.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before 8 August 2013.

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 all employment developments falling within Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005, the employment element of any mixed use development and residential developments of five dwellings or less.

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         F07 Domestic use only of garage

4.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

5.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

6.         H03 Visibility splays

7.         H05 Access gates

8.         H06 Vehicular access construction

9.         H09 Driveway gradient

10.       H12 Parking and turning - single house

11.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

12.       The recommendations set out in the Method Statement documents dated 6 August 2012 should be followed in relation to the identified species and the work shall be implemented as approved.

An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

Reason: 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 to comply with Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

Reason for Approval

1.         The new dwelling replaces a dwelling with established use rights and one not of significant architectural or historic interest. The new dwelling is proportionate in scale and massing to the xisting dwelling and utilises sympathetic materials. A new access and on –site parking will improve highway safety and the interests of biodiversity have also been addressed. Therefore, the proposal accords with Policies H7, HBA8, DR1, DR2, DR3, NC1, NC3 and NC7 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan together with the NPPF.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         HN01 Mud on highway

2.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

3.         HN05 Works within the highway

4.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

5.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

Date of next site inspection:   28 August 2012

Date of next meeting:              29 August 2012