Apologies were received from Councillor DW Greenow.

To any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

8. S122252/F - 1 HAMPTON PARK ROAD, HEREFORD, HR1 1TQ.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor knows the applicant.

8. S122252/F - 1 HAMPTON PARK ROAD, HEREFORD, HR1 1TQ.

Mark Robinson, Non-Pecuniary, The Officer knows the applicant. The Officer chose to leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2012 at 10:00 am..

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held at 10:00 am on 7 November 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman requested that all mobile phones be either turned off or set to silent. He also advised Members to leave the Council Chamber if they did need to receive a phone call.

One Member of the Committee asked if the Planning Department had a detailed analysis regarding costs awarded in respect of decisions where Members had determined applications contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Detached new 3 bedroom house with garage and drive.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Alcock, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Stacey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors DB Wilcox and NP Nenedich, the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The key issue in determining the application was whether the proposed dwelling preserved or enhanced the conservation area.

·         Although the modern design was praised its location next to a listed building within a conservation area was a concern.

·         There had been a slight reduction in the height of the proposed dwelling as a result of discussions with the applicant although this reduction was only minimal.

·         There was a strength of feeling from local residents that the application should be refused.

The Committee debated the application and were of the opinion that the key issue in determining the application was the impact that the proposed development would have on the conservation area. They noted that in order to comply with the Unitary Development Plan the development was required to either preserve or enhance the conservation area. The debate focused on this issue, some members were of the opinion that a conventionally designed development would be more suitable in the area whereas other members were enthusiastic about the contemporary design of the proposed dwelling.

Members discussed whether some of the dwellings constructed over the previous 20 years actually preserved the conservation area. It was noted that the row of houses referred to by members during the debate was outside of, but immediately adjacent to, the conservation area.

One of the key issues raised by the Committee during the debate was the proposed colour of the dwelling. The majority of Members who supported the application in principle did have concerns about the white finish proposed in the application. They requested that a more suitable colour of render be used. The Development Manager advised that condition 3 of the officer’s recommendation required samples of external materials to be approved, he advised that this condition could also require the colour of the render to be approved.

Members discussed the issue of ‘garden grabbing’, however it was noted that the principle of development on the site had already been established through the existing planning permission. It was considered that the existing permission would not enhance the conservation area.

Some Members expressed an alternative view and were of the opinion that the proposed development would not enhance the conservation area. It was noted that the area had been designated as a conservation area for a number of years and that it had a distinctive character due to the high status Victorian villas fronting the road. It was also considered that the proposal would significantly detract from the neighbouring listed building.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Change of use from public house to a nursery school, class D1; reconfiguration of existing flat from 1-bedroom to 2-bedrooms; together with associated car parking spaces.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Marshall, the applicant, spoke in support of her application.

Members discussed the application and welcomed the proposed re-use of the public house for a community usage.

One Member of the Committee asked the applicant if the original name of the public house could be considered when naming the nursery due to its established popularity within the area.

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.         The maximum number of children to be looked after at the nursery hereby approved shall not, in accordance with an OFSTED registration, exceed 60.

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety so as to comply with Policies S6, T11 and DR3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

5.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

6.         H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

7.         H30 Travel plans

8.         Prior to the commencement of development, a full working method statement and habitat scheme for bats should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:  In order to ensure the protection of European Protected Species in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies NC1, NC7, NC8 and NC9, the NERC Act 2006 and the Habitats Directive.

Reason for Approval

1.         The application has been considered with regard to Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S6, DR2, DR3, T6, T7, T11, HBA6, NC1, NC7 and NC8 and guidance set down in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.  The loss of the public house is not considered to prejudice the ability of the local community to meet its day to day needs and weight has been attributed to the proposed introduction of a community facility for which there is an identified need.  The local planning authority is also conscious of the employment opportunities that will be created.  With an initial limit of 60 children, the proposed parking layout is considered acceptable in accordance with Policies DR3 and T11.   The proposed use would not significantly effect existing levels of residential amenity by comparison to the historic use as a public house in accordance with Policy DR2.

Proposed construction of detached dormer bungalow.

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 Philpotts, representing Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, and Mr Neale, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to 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 site visit undertaken the previous day gave Members an opportunity to make a better judgment in respect of the application.

·         The Inspector had previously stated, in respect of a separate application in Belle Bank Avenue, that the properties had a distinctive pattern and were worthy of continuous protection.

·         The approval of the application would result in two extremely cramped properties with issues of overlooking.

·         Amenity space for both properties will be limited with the issue of overlooking also being a key issue.

·         The loss of garden space would also have an adverse effect on biodiversity.

·         In June 2011 PPS3 was amended to exclude garden grabbing.

·         There would be an increase in traffic issues if the application was approved.

Members discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the possible overdevelopment of the site. They noted that the existing garden was going to be reduced by approximately 70% through the proposed dwelling and also noted the close proximity of the new dwelling to the existing one. It was considered that the proposed application would have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties as well as impacting on the distinctive character of the area. It was however noted that there could be a need to support the family and Members considered that an extension to the existing dwelling may be deemed more acceptable.

Members discussed the key policies of the Unitary Development Plan and were of the opinion that the application should be refused as it was contrary to Policies DR1, DR2 and DR3. Reference was also made to PPS3 although the Committee were advised that this should not be referred to as a reason for refusal as it had been replaced by the National Policy Planning Framework.

In discussing the reasons for refusal Members confirmed that the key reasons for refusal related to scale and mass, the impact on the character of the area, and the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Members were also of the opinion that there were issues relating to sustainability and agreed that policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan should also be included in the reasons for refusing the application.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The Parish Council had objected to the application and had expressed the views of the local residents.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its size, scale, design and siting would represent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 34 houses and garages together with roads, sewers and associated external works.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a site inspection.

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 also advised that she had recently received notification that the appeal lodged with OFWAT by Crest Nicholson had now been withdrawn and therefore the drainage system would now be adopted.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Philpotts, representing Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, spoke in objection to 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 site had been designated as B2 employment land and should remain as such.

·         There were 300 homes being built at the Furlongs and therefore the protection of employment land was essential.

·         There were concerns in respect of landscaping, sewerage, highways, site levels and contaminated land.

·         The Section 106 agreement should require a contribution to Holmer School and the Wentworth Park play area.

Members were of the opinion that a site inspection would be beneficial on the grounds of the setting and surroundings.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The site visit was welcomed and would assist in the Committee’s determination of the application.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred pending a site inspection on the following grounds:

c          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.

Single 50kw wind turbine, with a maximum blade tip height of 25.1m along with improvement of access track, electrical switchgear house with associated underground cabling and temporary crane hardstanding.

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 that a further letter of objection had been received after the update sheet had been received that had also been copied into the Committee; she added that if Members had any comments as a result of that correspondence she would address them accordingly.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Thomas, representing Dorstone Parish Council, and Mr Cottam, the applicant, spoke in support to the application and Mr Burt, one of the local residents, spoke in objection.

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

·         The original turbine was 35 metres high but this had been reduced following discussions with local residents.

·         The turbine was well placed on the site to maximise efficiency as well as reducing visual impact.

·         There were no significant traffic issues.

·         The Parish Council was now in support of the application.

Members noted the concerns of the neighbouring residents that approving the application could result in a precedent being set. However they reminded all parties that it was their responsibility to determine each application on its merits.

The sustainable nature of the application was noted with reference being made to the reduction in the carbon footprint for the village of Dorstone. The applicant was praised for working with the Parish Council and the local community in reducing the size of the turbine to make the application more acceptable. It was noted that there were still concerns from some local residents.

Members referred to other community led wind turbine projects throughout the Country and noted that community engagement was a key factor in addressing concerns to turbines.

There was a concern that the approval of the application could lead to a number of similar applications being submitted in the area. The government’s support of wind turbines was also noted.

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

·         The issue of precedent had been addressed and any additional applications would have to be determined on their merits.

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.         The external colour and finish of all parts of the structure hereby approved shall be permanently maintained in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to comply with the requirements of policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         In relation to the development hereby permitted, no deliveries of components shall be made to the site unless or until a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has been submitted to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Date of next site inspection:   18 December 2012

Date of next meeting -            19 December 2012