Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie, RC Hunt, Brig. P Jones CBE and G Lucas.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JA Hyde attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor G Lucas.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2012.

The Committee noted that a written statement had been read out on behalf of Councillor A Seldon in respect of the application at Pencombe Hall rest home (minute number 39) and requested that the minutes be amended to include a reference to this.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the Planning Committee would be the last meeting attended by Jane Cotton, the Locum lawyer (Planning and Regulatory). He placed on record the Committee’s appreciation for her input and guidance and wished her good luck in the future.

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

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. He advised Members that since the updates had been produced further information and clarification regarding drainage serving the development had been obtained. He advised Members that in order to connect to the adopted network waste would have to pass through a short section of unadopted pipe. He therefore requested that an additional pre-commencement condition be added to the recommendation requiring the development to be served by an adopted network or a network that was subject to an adoption agreement with Welsh Water to address this. He noted the local communities concerns in respect of offsite drainage issues but advised that these concerns were not relevant to the application under consideration today.

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:

·         There were still ongoing concerns in respect of sewerage issues in the area with raw sewerage being leaked onto Roman Road in the last week.

·         The Landscape Officer still objected to the application on the basis of landscape character.

·         The area was of high landscape value due to it being one of the few remaining areas of small fields with native hedges in the proximity of the city.

·         The application was therefore contrary to UDP Policy H7.

·         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. An appeal had been made to OFWAT with public disclosure of the decision due shortly.

·         The site was a greenfield site, the Council, in accordance with the Cabinet decision made on 12 July 2012, should look at the availability of brownfield sites and low to medium constraint sites before granting permission on the application site.

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

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the unadopted section related to an area where two pipes merged into one on Roman Road between an existing manhole cover and the pumping station.

The committee opened the debate by referring to the four key reasons on which they felt the application should be refused, they felt that these still remained valid despite the information contained within the further information report.

The Committee noted the comments in the further information report in respect of Unitary Development Plan Policy H7 and were of the opinion that the application should be refused due to it being contrary to the afore mentioned policy. They also stated that there were still a number of brownfield sites throughout the county which should be prioritised for housing before any rural greenfield areas were considered.

In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that with the exception of the adjoining site, the known available brownfield sites such as some of [amended at Planning Committee 19 September 2012] the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Proposed refurbishment and extension to provide 51 bed spaces.  Demolition of outbuildings.

The Committee were minded to approve the application contrary to the case officer’s recommendation subject to the decision not being called in by the Secretary of State.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) 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 Claridge, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The application should be approved as there was a need for a dementia facility in the city.

·         Patients deserved to be treated with care compassion and dignity.

·         There were examples of elderly people throughout the county who had cared for loved ones whilst they were suffering with dementia, Alzheimer’s or vascular dementia.

·         There comes a time when people can’t be looked after in their own homes and then facilities such as the one proposed are vital.

·         Respite care was a significant benefit to the proposed home, this would give patients an opportunity to develop relationships with carers whilst offering the families much needed assistance.

·         Half of the population of the County resided in the city, hence the need for a care home within the city at a sustainable site such as the one proposed.

·         Then ability for patients to be able to walk around the home was important hence the design proposed.

·         It was predicted that the number of older people with dementia would rise by 92% by 2030.

·         The number of people aged 85+ in the county was estimated to double by 2026.

·         Only 38% of the 565 bed spaces in a 5 mile radius of the proposed site offered single bedrooms with ensuite facilities.

·         Bed blocking was still a major problem in the County.

·         Although the immediate EMI bed requirement was met this would not remain the case in the coming years. The Council needed to be proactive in dealing with the situation.

·         The proposed site had good rail and bus links and was therefore considered to be a sustainable development.

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

·         The comments of the other local ward member were endorsed.

·         The listed building status of the building related to the side and front elevations which needed protecting however the 1970’s additions were of no architectural value and did not add to the character or setting of the original building.

·         The building had been void for four years and was in danger of falling into a dilapidated state.

·         The western elevation may be seen but this is deemed acceptable as part of the overall scheme.

·         The current building was not viable; the proposed extension would make the building a viable proposition.

·         The original application on the site was not acceptable, the applicant came back with a revised plan which was now deemed acceptable.

·         The majority of the concerns raised by the neighbouring resident could be addressed through appropriate conditions.

·         The proposal would preserve and enhance the character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Proposed new dwelling.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) 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 PA Andrews, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         Although the application site was in land defined as open countryside it was in a popular residential area.

·         The site was acceptable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members discussed the application and noted that there were no issues of overlooking and that the bridleway formed a natural boundary which encompassed the development.

RESOLVED

That subject to no objection being raised by Natural England that officers be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         I51 Details of slab levels

3.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

4.         C01 Samples of external materials

5.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

6.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

7.         H05 Access gates

8.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

9.         H27 Parking for site operatives

10.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

11.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

12.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

Reason for Approval

1.         The proposal fails to comply, in principle, with policy H7 of the UDP, however weight must be given to the National Planning Policy Framework that clearly identifies that where sites are considered to be sustainably located, and where they comply with other relevant policies, there should be a presumption in favour of development. The sites development clearly accords with policies in relation to design, character of the area, landscape impact and highway safety, namely polices DR1, DR2, DR3, LA2 and H13 of the UDP. In conclusion, whilst the prospective application would be contrary to Saved Policies of the UDP, the absence of a 5-year supply of housing land means that there are grounds to approve this application.

Informative:

1.         HN05 Works within the highway

Proposed first floor extension to existing bungalow to provide two storey element incorporating dormer windows and one and a half storey wings.

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 the criteria for public speaking, Mr Ashton, representing Colwall parish Council, and Mr Allen, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Whittaker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

The debate was opened by one Member of the Committee speaking in objection to the application. He had concerns in respect of the impact the development may have on the character of the area due to the change in roofline. He therefore moved that the application be refused as it was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies DR1, H18 and H16.

However other Members of the Committee had a differing view and were of the opinion that the extension should be permitted. They felt that it was a natural development and noted that the dwelling was currently the only single storey property in Ballard Close.

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.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F15 No windows in side elevation of extension

5.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

6.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

Reason for Approval

1.         The proposed development is acceptable and in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and will not adversely affect the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent/nearby dwelling houses.  As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies S2, DR1, LA1, H4, H13 and part of H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Government advice contained in the Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

INFORMATIVES:

1.         N03 Adjoining property rights

2.         N14 Party Wall Act 1996

3.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

4.         HN05 Works within the highway

Date of next site inspection:   18 September 2012

Date of next meeting:              19 September 2012