Apologies were received from Councillors JG Lester, G Lucas and RI Matthews.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Rone, JA Hyde and DC Taylor attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors JG Lester, G Lucas and RI Matthews.

10. S122243/FH - 1 ARUNDEL CLOSE, BELMONT, HEREFORD, HR2 7ST.

Councillor AN Bridges, Disclosable Pecuniary, The application directly affected the Councillors residential property as defined in his register of interests.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2012.

Councillor J Hardwick advised that he had declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 as he knew the applicant as well as being a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Powers to the Planning Committee.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that an appeal had been lodged by Crest Nicholson regarding the recent refusal of an application relating to land off Attwood Lane, Hereford. He requested volunteers from the Committee to assist in the appeal. Councillors Hubbard, Greenow and Watts agreed to join Councillors Edwards and Robertson who had already agreed to attend the appeal.

Site for demolition of existing workshop/storage units and erection of eleven houses (seven market houses and four affordable houses) with associated landscaping and infrastructure.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The Planning Inspector’s view was that the land was suitable for housing and it would have been included in the UDP had it not been considered that the change could result in a delay in the adoption of the policy.

·         The lack of a 5 year housing supply had resulted in the site now being considered as suitable for housing development.

·         The Parish Council had objected to the application although their proposed neighbourhood plan would consider it for development.

The Committee raised concerns in respect of the proposed layout of the site and were of the opinion that the affordable housing provision on the site should be better integrated with a provision of larger homes. They were concerned that the proposed layout could result in a social division on the site.

The Concerns of the Parish Council were noted however the Committee disagreed with their comments that nothing had changed since the application was previously submitted in 1999. It was noted that the situation had changed and that the lack of a 5 year housing supply had made it difficult to refuse these types of applications.

The Committee expressed their concerns regarding the lack of a 5 year housing supply for the County as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. They discussed the matter at length and requested that further investigation be undertaken outside of the remits of the Planning Committee. They were concerned that more suitable sites could be overlooked in favour of sites bought to the attention of the Committee through the planning application process. The Chairman was requested to liaise with the Scrutiny team to address the concerns of the Committee.

In respect of the points raised during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the layout plan was purely indicative and that the actual site layout would be determined at the reserved matters stage. He did however add that in general housing associations preferred affordable housing to be in one area for ease of maintenance. In response  to a point raised regarding the size of the proposed affordable units, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that two-bedroom homes had been recommended as a result of the housing needs survey undertaken in the area. In response to a final point regarding land use he also advised that the commercial usage on the site would cease and move to an alternative a new site.

Councillor Hope was given the opportunity to close the debate. He chose to make no additional statement.

RESOLVED

Subject to completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in accordance with the terms in the agreement annexed to this report, Officers named  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Proposed campsite for 5 demountable tents (6 month holiday season).

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

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

·         The electoral roll listed Bacton as having 50 residents.

·         This application had resulted in more letters of objection than any other application in Bacton over the last 18 months.

·         The Parish Council had echoed the concerns of the local residents.

·         There was no objection in principle although there was a concern that the tents were not visible from the farmhouse, therefore the location for the tents should be revised.

·         The tents were 240 metres away from the farmhouse, the applicant had been reluctant to change this despite discussions taking place.

·         The nearest shops were 4-5 miles away so visitors would still be dependant on a motor vehicle.

·         The application was not in accordance with Policies DR1 and DR3 of the unitary development plan.

·         Blue light services would not be able to access the site.

·         The buffer zone could not be achieved whilst enabling the woodland owner to still have a 12 ft legal access.

·         Due to the concerns in respect of access, health and safety, site management and the location of the tents, the application should be refused.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee speaking in support of the application. He was of the opinion that the application highlighted the unique selling points of the county and enabled visitors to see rural Herefordshire at its finest. He did however note that there was still a requirement to protect the woodland trust and considered that this could best be achieved by educating visitors as to the reasons why they should not scavenge wood for fires. He noted the concerns in respect of the location of the proposed tents but considered that the proposed area for the tents appeared to be the most suitable area on the site due to its topography. Finally he requested that appropriate monitoring of the site be undertaken to ensure that the tents were taken down over the winter months and then re-erected in spring.

Members continued to discuss the application and whilst broadly in support they did highlight some concerns including the possible risk of fire through the stoves and cookers which were proposed to be located inside the tents. Further concerns related to the apparent lack of a site management plan, although it was noted that this would be required prior to any of the tents being occupied; the right of access to the site; the proposed siting of the tents; and the difficulty in accessing the site by the emergency services.

Members continued to discuss the application with a number highlighting that the proposed usage was a low impact use and therefore a good farm diversification. However in supporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Replacement of existing softwood windows with oak framed windows.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

The Committee noted that the application had only been bought before them as it had been submitted by a Council Officer in a politically restricted post.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that the recommendation should be amended to grant listed building consent and not planning permission as referred to in the report.

RESOLVED

That listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         D01 Time limit for commencement (Listed Building Consent)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         D05 Details of external joinery finishes

Reason for Approval

1.         The installation of oak framed windows is considered an acceptable response to the need to replace existing rotting softwood units. The plans submitted propose a design which respects the historic fabric and aesthetic quality of the dwelling in accordance with policies DR1 and HBA1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Erect and move fence.

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

The Development Supervisor gave a presentation on the application.

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

·         No site visit had been approved by the Council however she had visited the site with the Planning Officer.

·         The Transportation Manager had not objected to the application.

·         The site was not public open space and was in the ownership of the applicant.

·         The amenity value was not significant as public open space.

·         Paragraphs 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 of the officer’s report were all in support of the application.

·         Visibility was not an issue.

Councillor PJ Edwards also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The venting gabions needed to be accessed and should not be fenced in.

·         The proposed mitigation measures were a concern.

·         Trees had been felled and the gabion had been unearthed.

·         The application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy S1 as it did not respect or improve the health and safety through reduced pollution and safer design of the built environment and landscaping.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy S2 as high standards of design and layout were not being retained from the initial planning permission for Arundel Close.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy DR1 in terms of design principles and poor design and does not promote or reinforce the distinctive character and appearance of the locality.

·         The application was also contrary to UDP Policies DR2 and DR3.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy H13 in terms of sustainable residential design.

·         Policies LA2, LA3, LA5 and LA6 were also quoted as landscape reasons for refusing the application.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy HBA9 in terms of the protection of wildlife corridors within built up areas.

·         Due to these policy issues the application should be refused.

Members discussed the application and were generally in support of the application. They noted the existing posts that appeared to be higher than the two metres stated in the report however they were reassured by the Development Supervisor that the posts would be cut down to two metres high once the fence panels were erected. Members were of the opinion that a condition requiring the fence posts to be reduced in size in a designated time frame would be beneficial.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised Members that the parcel of land in question was in fact part of the applicant’s garden and that it was not a public open space. He added that the applicant could have erected a lower fence without any need for planning permission.

It was noted that there had only been one letter of objection received in respect of the application and that this had now been withdrawn.

Councillors Edwards and Powell were given the opportunity to close the debate. Councillor Edwards reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The application had been bought before the committee as the Parish Council and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.