Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, FM Norman,  MD Lloyd-Hayes and G Lucas.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors E Chave, JA Hyde and JLV Kenyon attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors FM Norman, BA Durkin and MD Lloyd-Hayes.

8. S121611/F - MILL FARM BUILDING, MILL LANE, CREDENHILL, HEREFORD, HR4 7EJ.

Councillor DW Greenow, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor knows the applicant's father.

8. S121611/F - MILL FARM BUILDING, MILL LANE, CREDENHILL, HEREFORD, HR4 7EJ.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor knows the applicnat's mother.

8. S121611/F - MILL FARM BUILDING, MILL LANE, CREDENHILL, HEREFORD, HR4 7EJ.

Councillor RI Matthews, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor knows the applicant's parents.

9. N121446/CD - LEOMINSTER INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS, HEREFORD ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor Brig P Jones CBE, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor is Chair of the Governers for the Mortimor College which has links to the Junior School.

9. N121446/CD - LEOMINSTER INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS, HEREFORD ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor EMK Chave, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor was a supply teacher for the primary school prior to 2010.

9. N121446/CD - LEOMINSTER INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS, HEREFORD ROAD, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor RC Hunt, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor is a Governer at the Junior School.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2012.

The Committee requested that minute number 51, paragraph 6, be amended to read:

“…, the known available brownfield sites such as some of the Edgar Street Grid…”

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment as set out above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the Planning Committee due to take place on 7 November 2012 would be an extended meeting. He also read out a letter from Mrs Butler, a resident who had attended a recent planning committee, thanking the committee for the way that they had considered an application which she had objected to.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that the decision and the minute in respect of Pennoxstone Court, Kings Caple, had now been quashed by the High Court and that the application was therefore undetermined, and would therefore be referred back to the Planning Committee.

Proposed demolition of existing Infant and Junior Schools and construction of a new primary school.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

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 Downey, representing some of the residents of Hereford Road, spoke in objection to the application.

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

·         The site visit had been beneficial to members in addressing concerns on the site.

·         The school was important for Leominster and had the full support of the local residents in principal, however there were a number of concerns that needed to be addressed.

·         The school will only accommodate the current number of pupils in the primary and junior schools, where would additional pupils be accommodated when numbers increase.

·         The government advice was set out in paragraph 2.2 and required the Council to be proactive in respect of planning for possible pupil numbers.

·         Flat roofs had caused problems in the past, could the committee be assured that the proposed roof would be fit for purpose with a long life expectancy.

·         The coloured tiles proposed for the main entrance needed to blend in and had to be considered carefully.

·         The area was prone to flooding and the flood issues did not seem to have been considered fully by the land drainage engineer.

·         Parking would continue to be an issue on Hereford Road, needed to look into additional parking. Existing School land at George Street could be considered for additional parking. This could be covered by a Section 106 agreement.

Councillor PJ McCaull, the other local ward member added that:

·         The schools clearly needed to be replaced and they had been allowed to depreciate during the 4-5 years that the application had been in discussion.

·         There will be double the amount of children using the one vehicular entrance to the school from Hereford Road.

·         Vital to retain some of the land for additional parking.

·         There was a significant amount of groundwork required to make the site suitable for development.

·         The proposed application was seriously lacking in sustainable features.

·         The design of the proposed school was of concern with reference made to the impressive design of the nearby Mortimer College.

·         There was a concern in respect of run-off water which needed to be addressed in order to alleviate any flooding concerns in the area. The small pool which had been proposed was not going to be able to take all of the water.

·         The applicants should consider a large underground water storage tank which could then be reused on the site.

·         The report mentioned that the roof was suitable for solar panels, these should be installed during the build.

·         The current proposals did not account for increased pupil numbers as a result of residential developments proposed for Leominster.

The Democratic Services Officer read out a letter received from Councillor FM Norman, who was unable to attend the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Conversion of rural building to one dwelling and construction of new vehicular access.

The application was approved 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. She advised the Committee of one amendment to paragraph 5.3 of the report as six letters of support had been received not four.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Day, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The applicant was a local agricultural worker who wished to build a home close to where he currently lived with his family.

·         The proposed accommodation was modest in size.

·         The conservation manager had objected to the application.

·         The existing building was an historic building of local importance and dated back to the hop growing era.

·         The local history society was in favour of retaining the building.

·         The site should not be considered as open countryside, there were a number of dwelling sin close proximity.

·         The proposed application would result in a sustainable development.

·         Issues relating to ecology and water quality could be addressed through conditions.

Members discussed the application and were broadly in support of it. However they did have a number of concerns which they felt could be adequately addressed through appropriate conditions.

A motion to approve the application, citing Unitary Development Plan Policies HBA12, HBA13, S1, S2 and DR2, was moved and seconded.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised Members to consider the three reasons for refusal listed in the officer’s recommendation. He advised that reason two had been addressed by the Committee; that reason one needed to be addressed and that reason three could be addressed through a delegated approval subject to Habitat Regulations being met.

Members discussed the concerns regarding the second reason for refusal and stated that they were of the opinion that the current building was of historic value and was worthy of being retained therefore the application was in accordance with UDP Policies HBA12 and H7. They requested that a condition be added to require the applicant to adhere to a scheme of construction to ensure the existing external walls were retained.

Members continued to discuss conditions which they wished to see attached to the planning permission. As well as the previously mentioned condition addressing a scheme of construction they also requested that an agricultural tie be added as well as the removal of permitted development rights.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning requested that the condition in respect of the removal of permitted development rights be amended to allow solar panels to be installed at the site.

The mover and seconder of the original motion amended the motion to include a reference to the three proposed conditions as well as any further conditions deemed necessary by officers.

Councillor Morgan was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and requested that the application be approved.

RESOLVED

THAT  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Change of use from agricultural to B2 general industrial – reuse of existing building with extension to form workshop for kit car assembly.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Burridge, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Coppock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The views of the parish council should be taken seriously.

·         The nearest residents live just 30 metres away from the site.

·         Conditions had been recommended to address noise, therefore there was clearly a concern in respect of noise emanating from the site.

·         The cars manufactured by Raw Striker used a motorcycle engine, this would be noisy during testing.

·         Air tools used in the manufacturing process would also be noisy.

·         Need to look at paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and protect an area of tranquility.

·         Need to refuse the application in accordance with paragraph 7 of the NPPF based on appropriate land uses.

·         There were also concerns in respect of the narrow highway to the site.

·         There was also a well-used bridlepath 30 metres away from the site.

·         The applicant had a site currently which he did not need to leave.

·         29 local residents objected to the application.

Members opened the debate by voicing their concern in respect of the application. They had reservations regarding the proposed usage on an area of land close to dwellings and an equine centre. It was considered that the proposed usage was an industrial use which would be better suited to one of the many industrial estates within the County. It was noted that the kit cars would need to be tested which would result in noise outside of the manufacturing unit.

Some Members however had a differing opinion and felt that the application should be approved. They felt that small businesses in the County should be encouraged and noted that the usage did not constitute a car factory and was solely a unit for assembling already prepared parts. The requirement of a complete noise attenuation scheme was discussed with consideration being given to deferring the determination of the application until a scheme had been fully considered and agreed with officers.

The Committee noted that the application was finely balanced. They continued to discuss their concerns regarding odour, noise, and an inappropriate use of the land. They also noted that the applicant intended relocating his existing workforce and did not intend to recruit additional employees from the local community.

Councillor Matthews was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The neighbouring site had been used for equine use for approximately 20 years.

·         There were a number of valid reasons to refuse the application, primarily impact on the amenity of the neighbours and highways.

A motion to approve the application in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Alterations and extension to existing 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. He drew Members attention to a letter in the update sheet submitted by Mrs Jones, one of the neighbouring residents who had objected to the application, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rumsey, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ingleton, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The application was finely balanced.

·         The proposed extension would make an extremely small cottage suitable for a family home.

·         The existing cottage was too small at present and needed to be extended.

·         Once extended the dwelling would only have three bedrooms.

·         Members attended a site inspection and were therefore able to judge the impact on the neighbouring residents.

·         There were conflicting views from the Council’s Conservation and Landscape Officers.

·         A pitched roof would result in a much larger footprint.

Members noted the quality of the workmanship that had been undertaken in restoring the existing cottage, they also noted that at present it was not fit for a family home and was in need of an extension. It was appreciated that the extension was contemporary with some members of the opinion that the cottage would benefit from an extension which was more in keeping with the original cottage.

The Committee commented on the proposed plans and noted that from the front of the dwelling the extension would not be seen, this therefore satisfied them that the original cottage would remain the dominant feature.

The issue of overlooking was discussed with Members of the opinion that any overlooking would be minimal. The Principal Planning Officer also advised that there were only ground floor windows facing the neighbours dwelling therefore reducing any issues of overlooking further.

Members continued to discuss the application, some were of the opinion that the proposed development was an ideal blend of contemporary and traditional design whilst others felt that the proposal was out of keeping with a traditional country village and would be more appropriate in an urban setting.

The issue of the scale of the extension was discussed at length. Members noted that the proposed extension would result in a 131% increase with some of the opinion that this was unacceptable. However other Members noted the scale of the existing dwelling and appreciated that a larger extension would be required to result in a home fit for a family to live in.

The Principal Planning Officer addressed a number of issues which had been raised by the Committee during the debate. He advised that the agreed floor plans meant that the extension could not be used as a separate dwelling; that an extension with a pitched roof would have to have a considerably larger  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Date of next site inspection:   16 October 2012

Date of next meeting:              17 October 2012