Apologies were received from Councillor Brig. P Jones CBE, JG Lester and RI Matthews.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JA Hyde and R Preece attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors JG Lester and RI Matthews.

7. S121357/N - LITTLE PENGETHLEY FARM, PETERSTOW, ROSS-ON-WYE, HR9 6NB.

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

7. S121357/N - LITTLE PENGETHLEY FARM, PETERSTOW, ROSS-ON-WYE, HR9 6NB.

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

10. S122498/F - CHEVENHALL, WALFORD ROAD, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5PQ.

Councillor JA Hyde, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor lives nearby.

10. S122498/F - CHEVENHALL, WALFORD ROAD, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5PQ.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Disclosable Pecuniary, The Councillor is a trustee of the neighbouring convent; [Note: Amended at Planning Committee meeting on 30 January 2013] on the advisory group of the neighbouring St. Joseph's Primary School and a trustee of the Cricket Club of which the applicant is involved.

11. S122724/FH - 9 & 10 BAKERS OAK, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5RP.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Disclosable Pecuniary, The applicant is the Councillor's son.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 7 November 2012 and the meeting held on 19 December 2012.

A member of the Committee noted that the paragraph of the constitution referred to in minute number 113 was incorrect. It was noted that this was due to a recent amendment to the constitution. The same member also sought clarification as to whether the Leader of the Council had declared an interest in respect of minute number 113. The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that no declaration of interest had been made.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 7 November 2012 and 19 December 2012 be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised the Committee that Duncan Thomas, a Senior Planning Officer within the Planning Department, was due to retire shortly. He added that Mr Thomas had been with Herefordshire County Council since its inception in 1998 and had been employed in local government for a total of 43 years. The Committee wished him a happy retirement and thanked him for the help and advice he had given them over the years.

The Chairman also advised the Committee that an appeal in respect of 127 houses at Porthouse Farm, Bromyard had recently been dismissed.

Construction of a 499kw Agricultural Anaerobic Digester to produce renewable energy from on-site generated waste and energy crops.

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 drew Members’ attention to an error in the update sheet under sub heading ‘para 6.15’ and advised that the second sentence should refer to accidents up to 2005 and not accidents since 2005.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Lyons, representing a number of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Williams, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support. Mr Davis, Chairman of Hentland, Ballingham and Bolstone Group Parish Council also addressed the Committee; he raised some concerns in respect of the application but was broadly in support of it.

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

·         The local residents had raised a number of concerns in respect of the application, these included:

•       The accuracy of the report had been questioned.

•       The application should be refused in line with the Locality Act as the majority of local residents opposed it.

•       There were concerns over the time taken to bring the application to Committee.

•       Why could the Anaerobic Digester not go on the applicant’s other site.

•       Some objectors felt that the applicant had mislead the Committee in respect of the plot size.

•       It was also considered that the traffic data provided was inaccurate and misleading.

•       It was also believed that the swale was added to the application at a later date to ensure that the application was initially treated as a smaller site.

•       Concern was raised that although the proposed Anaerobic Digester was just under 500kw it would be increased in the future.

•       There was concern that the report had been written in a way to mislead the Committee.

•       The qualifications of some of the professional consultees had also been questioned.

•       Concern had been raised in respect of some of the measurements contained within the report.

•       Some of the local residents felt that the AD plant should not be within 1000 metres of a residential dwelling.

•       The issue of flooding had also been raised by local residents.

•       The vehicular movements contained within the report were disputed.

•       The figures in respect of accidents on the A49 were also disputed.

•       Odour from the AD plant was an issue that had also been raised.

•       Health concerns had been raised with particular reference made to a local resident who suffered with asthma.

•       The lack of a site management plan had also been raised.

•       The Environment Agency had confirmed that even if planning permission was granted a licence may not be granted for the operation.

·         Councillor Hamilton then took the opportunity to share his own views with the Committee, he advised that:

•       He had listened to all sides and considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

New archive & records centre for Herefordshire Council, including repositories, conservation rooms, staff offices, education spaces, search room and exhibition space to enable members of the public to view artefacts.

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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor P Sinclair-Knipe, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         Lower Bullingham Parish Council had raised no objections to the application.

·         Dinedor Parish Council had raised a number of concerns but these had now all been addressed.

·         The Modern Records Office currently housed 17500 boxes, 10000 volumes and 3000 maps.

·         The centre had to move to a new location, alternatively it could move outside of the County.

·         The relocation would act as a catalyst for the enterprise zone and demonstrate that the enterprise zone was not just aimed at weekday uses.

The Committee opened the debate by focusing on the sustainable nature of the development. The Committee noted that that the proposed building was built to ‘Passivhaus’ standards and was an exemplar of energy efficient, sustainable design which would create an excellent environment for users.

Some concern was expressed in respect of the proposed location of the building. A number of Members were of the opinion that it would be better located within the city centre thus making it more accessible to users. Concern was also expressed regarding the Council allowing the records office to relocate to the Rotherwas Enterprise Zone at a time when other businesses within the city had not been permitted to do so.

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

·         The Modern Records Office was for the whole County to use and would be more accessible than its current Harold Street location.

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.         L01 Foul/surface water drainage

4.         L02 No surface water to connect to public system

5.         L03 No drainage run-off to public system

6.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

7.         The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report dated May 2012 should be followed. Prior to commencement of the development, a full working method statement and habitat enhancement scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

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 Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

8.         M06 Finished floor levels

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

10.       H21 Wheel washing

11.       H27 Parking for site operatives

12.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

13.       Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Flood Evacuation Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

Retention of existing mobile home (with temporary use for 2 years) as accommodation ancillary to occupation of dwellings permitted by approvals DMS/113120/F & DMS/113121/L.

The application was refused contrary to 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, Ms Inston, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The application related solely to the retention of one mobile home on the site, all other matter were now resolved.

·         The mobile home had been refused planning permission in 2008.

·         MrDinsdale did not own the site when the permission had been refused.

·         The removal of the mobile home was the final piece of enforcement action required as part of the Planning Inspector’s decision.

·         The Planning Inspector had recognised the importance of the Orchard in making her decision.

·         The retention of the mobile home would have an impact on the orchard and the biodiversity on the site.

·         The proposed location of the mobile home was a concern.

·         Work had already been commenced on the site.

·         The Inspector’s decision should be binding on the Council and should be enforced.

·         There was no objection to a mobile home on the site as long as it was located outside of the enforcement area.

·         The application should be refused and enforcement action should be commenced.

The Committee opened the debate by discussing the enforcement notice in respect of the mobile home on the site. It was noted that the enforcement notice issued in September 2011 was yet to be complied with. Members voiced their concerns that the proposed two year permission could result in further enforcement issue on the site. Therefore it was proposed that the application be refused and the officers ensure that the enforcement notice on the site was complied with.

Members continued to discuss the application and felt that there was no proven functional need for the mobile home on the site. It was further noted that a single mobile home would not provide sufficient housing for all of the workers on the site due to the extensive works required.

The Committee did note that the applicant was not responsible for the unauthorised development on the site, however he was aware of the enforcement issues when he purchased the land.

Members continues to discuss the application and noted that the site visit undertaken the previous day had highlighted that the mobile home could be seen from the public highway as well as from the garden of a neighbouring resident. It was also considered that the proposed site was not appropriate due to the ecological issues previously raised by the local ward member.

Members noted that the Planning Inspector had made a decision in respect of the site and that this decision should be complied with and enforced by the Council.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised Members that their decision should not be based on the previous enforcement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Proposed removal of Condition 8 of Planning Permission DCSE2008/2536/F (Conversion of outbuildings to an attached annexe and proposed link) as separate residential dwelling.

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

The Vice-Chairman was in the Chair for the following item.

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 Warwick, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The local ward members had asked for the application to come before the Committee.

·         The landscaping condition imposed by the committee previously was not wanted by either party.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Committee had requested a landscaping condition previously and that this could not be removed unless an appropriate application was received.

Councillor Atkinson was given the opportunity to close the debate but chose to make no further statement.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         C01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)(1 year)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         Within 3 months of the date of this permission details of the proposed parking for, and the delineation of the boundary treatment of the dwelling hereby permitted and Chevenhall shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The submitted details shall show the consolidation of the parking spaces, drainage and demarcation of the spaces identifying the dwellings to which the parking spaces relate and the parking spaces shall be retained and kept for the parking of vehicles at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain at all times and that appropriate levels of amenity are provided for both properties so as to comply with policies DR2, DR3, H13 and H16 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         F16 No new windows in specified elevation

5.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

Reason for Approval

1.         In reaching this decision the local planning authority has had particular regard to effect of the proposal upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property and it was concluded that there would be no adverse impact having particular regard to the character of the area, the limited size of the unit and the presence of screen fencing and planting.  Furthermore the independent occupation of the building would have no discernible impact upon the character of the Ross-on-Wye Conservation Area and the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and subject to conditional approval would be provided with an acceptable curtilage and off-road parking.  The proposal was considered to accord with Policies S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR3, H13, H16, HBA6 and LA1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received.  It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Front extensions.

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

The Vice-Chairman was in the Chair for the following item.

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.

The Committee noted that the application was only before them as it had been submitted by a close relative of a Councillor.

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

Reason for Approval

1.         The application represents an extension of acceptable size, scale and form in keeping with and subservient to the original dwellings resulting in no adverse impact upon adjoining residential amenity or the character and appearance of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore the proposal is considered to satisfy Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, DR2, H18 and LA1 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework

INFORMATIVES:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Installation of a satellite dish.

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.

The Committee noted that the application was only before them as it had been submitted by a close relative of an officer of the Council.

RESOLVED

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period , the officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         The length of the single satellite dish hereby permitted shall not exceed 100 centimetres.

Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the development complies with the requirements of Policies DR1 and H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and is in line with guidance provided within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for Approval

1.         The application to install a satellite dish on the south elevation of Meadow End is not considered to have an undue detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape nor is it considered to be of detriment to the amenity or privacy of neighbouring dwellings. As a consequence, the application accords with polices DR1, H13, H18 & LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and is in line with the guidance provided within the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVES:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Date of next site inspection:   29 January 2013

Date of next meeting:             30 January 2013