Apologies were received from Councillors EMK Chave, J Hardwick, JW Hope MBE, RC Hunt, Brig P Jones CBE, PJ Watts and DB Wilcox.

To receive details of any Member 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, Councillor SM Michael attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor EMK Chave, Councillor NP Nenadich for Councillor DB Wilcox and Councillor J Stone for Councillor JW Hope.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Councillor PA Andrews declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11:132624/0 Land off Church Way, Holmer, Hereford as a Governor of Holmer Primary School.

Councillor AN Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 7:  132321/F The Field Adjoining Brookmill Close, Colwall, Herefordshire because network Rail, his employer, was referred to in the report.

Councillor RI Matthews declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11:132624/0 Land off Church Way, Holmer, Hereford because he knew the applicant.  He also declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 12: Land Adjacent to Willowcroft, Sutton St Nicholas, Hereford because he knew the applicant.

Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 9: P133115/F Land Adjacent to Gateway Nursery, Longworth Lane, Bartestree, Herefordshire.because he knew the applicant.  He also declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 10: P132962/F Land Adjacent to October House, Bartestree, Hereford because he knew the applicant.  He left the Chamber for the duration of both items.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2014.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Erection of 12 new dwellings (6 of which are affordable housing).

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to additional conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He commented that it was now proposed that flood alleviation works should be completed prior to commencement of the development, rather than prior to the first occupation as set out in the draft heads of terms for a Section 106 Agreement.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Walker, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr Milne, the Applicant and Mr A Jamieson, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors CNH Attwood and AW Johnson, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Johnson commented on a number of issues including:

That residents were not opposed to the development in principle.

It was accepted that the application site did not contribute to the existing flooding events and the proposed development would not add to the problem, except in respect of the additional traffic it would generate.  The Parish Council and residents considered that work should be undertaken to address flooding issues prior to any development taking place. He supported this view.

The applicant’s offer of a contribution to flood measures was welcome.  However, as the site was not identified by the Environment Agency as being at risk of flooding there was a concern that the Agency might not make the necessary additional funding for the flood measures available given the competing demands upon its resources.

Councillor Attwood commented on a number of issues including:

The site did not contribute to the flooding but access to it would be compromised by flooding.  The Unitary Development Plan policy opposed development in such circumstances.  Increased traffic would exacerbate the problems faced by existing residents.  It was therefore essential that work was carried out to mitigate the immediate effects of the flooding.  An engineer who served on the Parish Council had identified action that could be taken at once in advance of any Environment Agency Funding being secured.

It was important that a hedgerow was planted as proposed to separate the development from the adjoining undeveloped land and that that land remained undeveloped.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The additional affordable housing was welcomed, however, it was disappointing that the it was proposed to be built at energy efficiency level 3; the Council should be encouraging development to attain the highest efficiency levels.

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer clarified where the drainage scheme for the site would be located and how it would work. 

The Principal Planning Officer stated that he had been advised that a bid to the Environment Agency for funding would have a reasonable chance of success given the offer of £30k from the applicant against an estimated cost for flooding measures of £70k.  He reiterated that any flooding scheme would be addressing existing issues and the offer of funding from the applicant presented an opportunity to resolve the matter.  If a bid was submitted to the Environment Agency by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Change of use from C3 dwelling to D1 dental surgery.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which had originally been submitted to the Committee on 29 January 2014 and deferred for a site visit.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors J Lester and A Seldon, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Seldon commented that, although supporting the principle of improved dental surgery provision in the locality, he remained concerned about the application on the grounds of highway safety.

Councillor Lester commented that the proposal would lead to an improved facility for the Town.  However, he remained concerned about the negative impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residents.  He also had concerns about highway safety.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The significant improvements to visibility that were proposed as part of the development needed to be balanced against the increased vehicle movements that would be generated.

It would be helpful if work to the highway could be undertaken to allow any vehicles that needed to wait to turn into Hatton Park to pull off the main road to do so.

That whilst the area was busy with traffic the movements were at low speed and, having undertaken a site visit, it did not appear that conditions were dangerous.  It was noted that the Transportation Manager was content with the proposal.

The Development Manager commented that the proposal would deliver a substantially improved access that would benefit residents and the area.  The proposal complied with the Highway Code.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated their concerns.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Demolition of redundant buildings and erection of 3 no. dwellings, new access and driveways.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to additional conditions.

(Mr K Bishop declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this 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, as appended to these Minutes, including a recommendation that an additional condition be imposed.  She added that the Parish Council had confirmed that it supported the amended Scheme.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  He indicated his support for the application.

The debate opened and a proposal was made that an additional condition be imposed relating to the hours of construction.

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditons:

Proposed erection of 3 detached dwellings, new access, driveway and garage.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to additional conditions.

(Mr K Bishop declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this 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, as appended to these Minutes, including a recommendation that an additional condition be imposed.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  He indicated his support for the application.

The debate opened and a proposal was made that a further additional condition be imposed relating to the hours of construction.

A Member expressed regret about the energy efficiency and sustainability of the proposed dwellings.  The Chairman reported that a briefing note on sustainability in construction would be circulated to Members shortly.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Erection of up to 13 no. residential dwellings along with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, internal access roads, car parking including garaging, landscaping including realignment of existing hedgerow, drainage and other associated works.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to further discussion on particular aspects exercising delegated authority.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Norris and Mr T Ball, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr D Hutchison, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

She highlighted the comments of the Parish Council set out in the report, noting in particular concerns about road safety.  She requested that detail of the highways proposals should be finalised in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.

There was concern about the impact on the landscape and a change in its character.  She considered it would be important when considering reserved matters that consideration was given to planting mature trees which would also have the benefit of protecting the amenity of Rose Lofts.

She questioned why the draft heads of terms did not propose any contribution to Holmer Primary School.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

A question was asked about the absence of any affordable housing in the development.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that as the development was adjacent to the City boundary the size of development fell below the level at which provision of affordable housing would be required.  Some members questioned this assessment considering the development was within the Parish of Holmer.

That as the site was at the gateway to the City it was important that the design was appropriate.  Sustainability of the construction of the dwellings was also important.

It was noted that an application for the erection of 9 bungalows had previously been refused.  It was suggested the grounds for refusal should have been specified in the report.

It was suggested that a layby should be created to help address the difficulty caused by on street parking.

The development seemed quite intensive given the size of the site.

It was proposed that the Chairman of the Committee and the local ward member should be consulted on the detail of the application before permission was granted.

The Development Manager noted that the application was an outline application looking only at the principle of development and the access.  There was scope for the Chairman of the Committee and the local ward member to be involved in discussions of the S106 Agreement.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and indicated her intention to ensure that local residents were consulted on the detail of the development.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the local ward member, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Proposed erection of 15 nos. dwellings.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to further discussion on particular aspects exercising delegated authority.

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, as appended to these Minutes.  He added that officers considered that all the Section 106 monies relating to highway aspects should be used to fund the construction of a footpath from the development to the school. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor KS Guthrie, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

There was local concern about the size of the development.  There was also a view that the application was premature as the Parish was in the process of completing a Neighbourhood Plan and consultation had not taken place.

The development was sustainable and overall there was a case to support it.

She highlighted the update to the report that had been circulated.

She requested that she should be consulted on the reserved matters.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The letters in support of the development were noted.

That a condition on the hours of construction should be imposed.

The Development Manager confirmed that the proposed footpath to the school would be on the same side of the road as the development and that funding was available for this as part of the S106 Agreement.  He acknowledged the importance of Neighbourhood Plans being agreed but the Committee had to determine the application before it.   The Strategic Land Availability Assessment had identified the site as the most appropriate for development in the locality. 

That the local ward member should be involved in discussions about the detail of the development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterate the importance of taking local views into account.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, and consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and local ward member, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Date of next site inspection – 11 March 2014

Date of next meeting – 12 March 2014