Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Graham Andrews, Tony Johnson and Alan Seldon.

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

Councillor William Wilding attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor Graham Andrews; Councillor Helen I’Anson attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor Tony Johnson; and Councillor David Summers attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor Alan Seldon.  

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairperson.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Erection of 2 detached dwellings.

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

(Erection of 2 detached dwellings)

(Councillor William Wilding as local ward member)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr J Watkins, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs J Joseph, planning agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member Councillor William Wilding spoke on the application.

He made the following principal points:

·         The application included a number of sustainable features but due to its location it still caused environmental harm.

·         The national planning policy framework encouraged developments to incorporate as many sustainable features as possible. The current application did not include solar panels. Applications and house design should include solar panels.

·         The lane on which the proposed development was located was narrow and was sunken in places with few passing places for cars. It was not ideal for walking.

·         The application proposed excavations to a bank to create an entrance to the property. This would damage the existing bank; if the member had been consulted on the application at an early stage he would have proposed the relocation of the entrance.

·         It was noted that the application would have an impact on local wildlife.

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         It was noted that there were no objections from statutory consultees.

·         There was concern that there were no solar panels incorporated in the design but other sustainable measures such as the heat pump were viewed favourably. The application incorporated a high level of sustainability which was a good example of housing seeking to limit carbon impacts. It was queried whether solar panels were viable with a green roof.

·         It was queried why no site visit was undertaken. It was felt that a site visit should have been undertaken. The Chairperson of the committee confirmed that the local ward member had not requested a site visit.

·         The impact of the application on flora and fauna was queried.

·         The importance of new housing in local villages to sustain local communities, their services and facilities was emphasised.

The Lead Development Manager commented that given the proposed green roof solar panels would probably need to be located elsewhere on the application site and an ecology survey had been submitted with the application. The county ecologist had raised no concerns with the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained he would have requested a site visit if aware of the process but as a new member of the council was unaware. Due to the absence of solar panels in the application it was not felt that the national planning policy framework had been interpreted properly or given proper weight in the application. It was asserted that sustainability measures needed to be incorporated in all new applications.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and Councillor David Summers seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a single dwelling.

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

The Development Manager 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Tony Johnson, as the applicant, spoke in support of the application and then left the meeting room following his submission to the committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Barry Durkin spoke as a proxy for the local ward member.

He made the following principal comments:

·        In 2010 a factory received permission close to the application site and at 1.3 miles was considered to be within walking distance of Colwall. The current application had not been considered sustainable development as the officer had concluded that the village was not within walking distance but would need to be accessed by car. Consistency between the two applications was required and permission for the current application should be granted in accordance with the assessment undertaken in 2010. The suitability of the site was established by the 2010 application and permission granted.

·        Within the previous five years there had been development around the application site including new houses, a factory and vineyard. The driveway to the application site was used as an access to these local developments together with a cricket pavilion and tennis courts which demonstrated that the locality was becoming a built up area.

·        The applicant wanted to build a single residential dwelling to provide suitable accommodation for his health needs.

·        The national planning policy framework required a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development where there was a shortage in the supply of building land and the core strategy was out of date with regard to land supply.

·        The application site fell within the area of the Colwall neighbourhood development area and was therefore deemed appropriate for development.

·        The Malvern Hills AONB had advised that the colour and design of the development would need to meet their specification.

·        The application proposed a modest development but one which would benefit the county and there was no potential for harm posed.

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The importance of incorporating wellbeing issues into planning matters and the potential that the applicant would need to leave due the area to his health needs if the application was not approved.

·        There was concern regarding development proposals located in the countryside. It was accepted by some members of the committee that the application site was set in open countryside and was therefore in an inappropriate location. It was the contention of some members that the area was a hamlet due to the level of local development.

·        It was acknowledged that the application site was set on a country lane but it was surrounded by commercial developments. The permission granted in 2010 was queried and if it concerned industrial usage.

·        There was disappointment that there was no supporting evidence provided as to how the application would meet the criteria  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Provision of a single mobile classroom.

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

(Provision of a single mobile classroom)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr S Morehead spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Kema Guthrie, submitted a statement which was read to the committee.

The statement contained the following principal points:

·        There were significant parking problems at Sutton primary school caused by a large amount of school traffic;

·        The school car park became full quickly in the morning which caused an adjacent road to become congested with parked cars.

·        There was significant concern with the volume of traffic accessing the school which also had an environmental impact. The school should investigate sustainable travel options to protect the environment and minimise disruption to local residents.

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        It was queried why a planning application was required given the provisions of the Caravan Act 1968.

·        It was noted that the provision of the mobile classroom would not increase the numbers of pupils at the school but was intended to improve the facilities. There was sympathy for the traffic problems around the school but it was not felt that this was relevant to the application and was an issue present at a number of local schools.

·        The use of mobile classrooms at schools had been long established and appeared to be necessary at the primary school due to the failure of capital bids to provide a more permanent improvement to facilities.

·        It was queried what would occur at the end of 5 years of the permission.

·        It was suggested that a condition requiring the school to undertake a school travel plan, to encourage sustainable transport, be attached as a condition to any permission granted.

In response to the questions the Senior Planning Officer and Lead Development Manager commented:

·        The mobile classroom exceeded the definition of a caravan in the Caravans Act 1968. Caravans did not require planning permission but the proposed mobile classroom was considered development due to its dimension.

·        After 5 years a further application would be required if the mobile classroom was still required.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the concerns raised regarding traffic affected all schools in the county. The school had been designed and built to incorporate the possibility of a future extension but the capital funding had not been forthcoming. The application was in accordance with policy.

Councillor David Summers proposed and Councillor Bernard Hunt seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation and an additional condition for the school to undertake a travel plan. The motion was carried unanimously; 14 votes in favour.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers.

1.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Removal of 2 no. timber sheds and construction of rear two storey extension. 

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

(Removal of 2 no. timber sheds and construction of rear two storey extension)

The planning officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor Terry James proposed and Councillor John Stone seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously; 14 votes in favour.

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

1.     Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.     C06 Development in accordance with approved plans

3.     CBK Construction of hours during construction

INFORMATIVES:

Replacement of defective lath and plaster ceilings with wood wool slabs.

The application was referred to the secretary of state for determination, in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Replacement of defective lath and plaster ceilings with wood wool slabs)

(Councillor Jeremy Milln as local ward member)

The planning officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution the local ward member, Councillor Jeremy Milln, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal points:

·        The Shirehall was the premier civic space in Hereford which was owned and maintained by Herefordshire Council.

·        The circumstances surrounding the work that had been undertaken constituted an offence under the listed building act for which there were no extenuating circumstances.

·        Following the collapse of the plaster in February 2019 the ceiling was removed without appropriate records kept. Works were carried out before an application was submitted.

·        The heritage impact assessment statement submitted with the application was not felt to be adequate.

·        The conservation officer considered the alterations of less than significant harm to the building however any work conducted without permission was still an offence.

·        It had been requested that a small amount of the plasterwork be retained however the work undertaken prior to March 2019 had caused damage to the plaster which was not reversible. It was not possible to reinstate the lath and plaster ceilings.

·        It was acknowledged that it was a difficult decision which the committee was required to take. The pragmatic approach would be to accept the issues that had occurred and approve the application; the Council had provided a report and explanation of why actions were undertaken following the collapse.

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The problems associated with the works to the building and the retrospective application had been ongoing for a long period of time.

·        There was discomfort at the public perception of the application and the representations which referred to the actions taken as unlawful. It was queried whether an alternative process to determine the application could be undertaken.

·        It was commented that planning enforcement would be stringent in sanctioning an individual if they had committed a similar breach.

·        It was acknowledged that the council had encountered significant criticism for the actions it had undertaken and had learned lessons.

  In response to questions the Lead Development Manager commented:

·        The committee was not determining the application, it was agreeing its referral to the Secretary of State for determination with a minded to approve recommendation.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He commented that in future the highest standards for conservation must be upheld in Herefordshire and the national planning policy framework and core strategy must be used to protect heritage. It was also noted that Historic England had not advised but had deferred to the advice of the specialist conservation adviser.

Councillor David Summers proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application is referred to the secretary of state in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously; 13 votes in favour.

 RESOLVED: That subject to consideration of any additional comments that may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Date of next site inspection – 15 October 2019

Date of next meeting – 16 October 2019

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting on 16 October 2019.