Link to the agenda: https://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=264&MId=8919
verbal confirmation provided when we are broadcasting I can confirm chairman that we are now live thank you welcome to the meeting of the planning and Regulatory committee the agenda papers and other relevant information for this meeting are available for the public viewing on the Herer Council website please remember your words and actions should be chosen carefully and members are reminded that speeches are limited to 3 minutes the council is streaming this meeting on the live her live on the Herer Council YouTube channel and also making a recording the recording will be available via the council’s website shortly after the meeting has concluded other attendees are permitted to film and photograph and record the meeting provided that it does not disrupt the business of the meeting if you do not wish to be filmed or photographed please identify yourself so that anyone who intends to record the meeting can be aware there are none to ensure that the recording quality is maintained could members speak as clearly as possible and keep background nose nose noise to a minimum ensure that the mo mo the mobiles and other devices are turned to sent welcome to all those in attendance I now ask Miss Gibbons who to introduce all the off officers for this meeting thank you chairman uh my name is Kelly Gibbons I’m the service manager for development management um to my right is Laura Smith who will be presenting item six and then joining late joining us later for item seven will be Adam Lewis and Andrew banks for item eight we’re also joined by Katie Jones on behalf of the local Highway Authority and online today we have Georgina COI as our uh legal advisor thank you now we’ll move on to um apologies for absence we have apologies from councelor Hamlin and Toby are there any other apologies no name substitutes are there any named substitutes no sub no no substitutes right um Declarations of interest can anyone who has a a wish to declare interest please make themselves known there are none we’ll move on now to the are the minutes of the meeting held on the 13th of March 2024 approved please can members raise their hands any against exensions to thank you there are are no Chairman’s announcements can I resp ask the request the speakers public speakers present in person for the agenda item six join the meeting Mr mil and Mr Tomkins please can you take your seat at the public participation table good morning and welcome I will um will call you when to speak following the officer’s presentation on the application thank you the application before us concerns 182 Ley Road herid the erection of two dwellings and Associated Works can I now ask officer to make a present the presentation thank you chair s good morning all and thanks for those who attended the site visit yesterday following some questions that were made on the visit members attention is drawn to the update sheet the application before you today relates to land at 182 leby Road Harford and is demarked by the red star on the screen the application is for two dwellings one three-bedroom TW storing dwelling and one two-bedroom Bungalow the site levels rise from the front to to the rear similar to the gradient of Quarry Road next slide please this slide shows the extent of the application site and is outlined in red this also shows the site within the local context with the site having an area of approximately 335 square meters next each dwell in will accommodate one parking space of which both will be accessed of Quarry Road both driveways will be to the east of the dwellings with both spaces meet in the required space sers to accommodate one vehicle there are no highways objections to the scheme following the recommended conditions attached within the officer report one existing access point already exists with the drop curb of Cory Road and therefore it is considered the impact of the on street parking is minimal with the loss of one parking space to provide the new vehicle access to the three-bedroom dwelling given the site’s highly sustainable location the walking distance to town shops and a main bus route one parking space per dwelling is considered acceptable in this location next slide please this slide shows the proposed elevations for the three-bedroom dwelling that will sit to the southwest of 182 lebby Road the dwelling will be detached and there will be approximately 1.3 M between the two dwellings the design is matching to what currently exists within the locality of a rendered first floor with red brick to the ground floor element the dwelling will follow the form of the existing dwellings along lebby Road and will have similar footprint to what currently exists next slide please on screen now shows the proposed Bungalow elevations and the existing drop curb entrance in the photographs on Quarry Road noting the new entrance will be moved slightly to the east of what currently exists questions were raised on site yesterday in regards to the lamp poost and following further investigation it has been confirmed that to that access to and from the driveway will not be hindered as a result of the lamp poost however if it was required to be moved it can be done so as part of a SE a section 184 license which would need to applied for Via balab questions were also raised in regards to the levels on site and how the Bungalow would sit within the plot as annotated in the amended site plan it shows the levels of the site to the rear where the Bungalow will be placed is approximately 1.25 M higher than the lowest part of the site it is therefore considered that there is no requirement to largely excavate the site only leveling out and with the Bungalows low Ridge of 6 M it is not considered to cause any overlooking or overbearing impacts on neighbor and Immunity next slide please the site history here is relevant there has been two previous applications on site one for three dwellings which was refused and then a later application in 2019 which was subsequently refused by the local Authority and dismissed on appeal the inspector’s comments here are relevant and as shown on screen to which they find no objection to the parking provisions of the site of which are similar to what exists now and then with the loss of one parking space is considered minimal in particular in this urban area the inspector also raised concerns with the proposed rear dwelling being twostory however following discussions with the local planning Authority through the pre-application process this has been amended to address these concerns and forms of proposal as presented here today no objections have been received from any of the statutary consules and therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined within the officer report and the update sheet thanks right we’ll now move on to speakers can I invite Mr Mill to speak on behalf of Herford city council you have three minutes Herford city council objects to this application considering it o overdevelopment of a prominent corner site out of keeping with the character and it of existing housing in the area City members also Express concerns of the impacts upon Highway and pedestrian safety of the intensification with more vehicle accesses across the pavement at this complex and noisy Road Junction members noted that also that the scheme would entail the loss of trees and green space through the development of the garden ground it is therefore considered that the proposed Leb road development with its pasti of a weak 1960s style to be of a poor design that fails to take opportunities to improve impr the character and quality of the area The Proposal constitutes a cramped form of development with Residential Properties proposed on a domestic Garden at a prominent Street Corner in an area characterized by dwelling set within well-proportioned plots the application is therefore contrary to policy sd1 for the creation of safe sustainable welcoming and we integrated places policy ld1 to demonstrate that local character has positively influence the design scale nature and setting and ss6 for Environmental Quality and local distinctiveness of the of the loc local plan call strategy and the provisions of the national planning policy framework chiefly par paragraphs 128 and 130 it is also considered that such o overdevelopment would detrimentally impact the immunity for resistance of 182 ladbury Road and to some extent 184 the front door and windows of the Southwest Gable of number 182 would be entirely overshadowed by the proposed development due to there being such a narrow Gap left between the gable endend walls of the existing and proposed dwelling houses and its Garden reduced to a tiny yard overshadowed by 6ft close boarded fences whether or not the rooms to which overshadowed Windows admit light are considered habitable the imunity of the future residents will be of a poor standard and would negatively impact their health and well-being this also makes the application contrary to policies sd1 ld1 s and ss6 of the local plan and the npfs chiefly par paragraphs paragraph 135f counselors these are broadly the reasons cited in respect of the previous application on the site refused by both by officers and by the planning inspector at appeal which the city council considers still apply given the identified harms this is not a sustainable form of development for which a presumption in favor May apply refusal is recommended thank you chair thank you can I now ask uh Mr Tomkin the applicant’s agent to speak you have three minutes thank you chair and good morning members I’m speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of their application for two small houses on the corner of Ley Road and Quarry Road Herford the applicants have owned the site since 1982 including 182 Ley Road the applicants are a small local building firm based in Mardin Herer who have a track record of delivering good quality builds they use local trades people throughout the design and build proc process which is fundamental to a buoyant local economy the site is sustainable located within walking distance of Herford City Center and the amenities therein the site is also near to schools numerous places of employment shops pubs and other amenities all of which are accessible on foot the development has a highly sustainable location which would reduce unsustainable transport use and which would maximize opportunity to support local Services the intention is that the houses will appeal to to those looking to get a foot on the property ladder or looking to downsize The Bungalow is designed to cater for those of reduced Mobility this is particularly important given the work underpinning the new local plan suggests that 41% of the population of Herer will be of retirement age within 17 years the location of the development is particularly important in this respect as it is so close to important amenities which are focused in Herford in terms of architecture the applicant has worked with the council’s officers throughout pre a advis process to ensure that the development design would have an appropriate relationship with the existing development in the area it builds on the advice glean through previous applications at the site and the detailed advice given by officers during the pre-application advice phase in terms of parking officers initially advised that no on-site parking would be required for the two-story unit but on receipt of contrary comments from the highway Authority the applicants were happy to amend the plans to include an additional space being one for each dwelling the highway Authority now agreed that the proposals would not unduly affect the highway safety or the flow of traffic on the road in summary the scheme provides smaller house types suitable for first-time buyers or those wishing to downsize The Bungalow in particular would assist in providing a house for those of limited Mobility the development is appropriate for the character of the area whilst the scheme would have an acceptable impact on parking levels as well as highway safety if this application were approved it would create work for a local building firm employing local trades people for these reasons we ask that you agree your officer’s recommendation and Grant planning permission for the development thank you thank you if you could take your seats back in the public gallery please councelor Foxton is the local W member for this item she speaks first and then has the right to speak at end of the debate she does not have a vote she has a time limit of 10 minutes for the opening address thank you chair thank you to all the members of the planning committee and all the residents who attended the site visit yesterday on 182 ladbury Road a special thank you to miss Laura Smith for her work in presenting the application 18 two lead road is at the foot of the steepest hill in the whole of the city um not two or three but there are five Road Junctions nearby the site is at a densely populated area as is most ofine Hill Ward 182 is just outside a conservation area where houses have off-road parking and all the BL blessings of Gardens and green spaces now the proposed properties are directly opposite three busy convenience shops tupsley dental practice a traditional fish and chip shop and the new Morrison’s local Mini Market which is proving to be very popular now I refer to the Herer local plan core Strate mt1 traffic management and Highway Safety reads ensure that new developments are designed and laid out to achieve safe entrance and exit and have appropriate operational and maneuvering space I believe mt1 mt1 is a crucially important policy to consider carefully with every single planning application now the proposal has two driveways onto a congested area which is heavily used by pedestrians school children fames cyclist Shoppers delivery lorries Vans plus heavy traffic traveling up and down Quarry Road plus the residence um mornings it’s very congested there now the two proposed driveways is onto a onto a heavily used pedestrian area moving vehicles and is truly hazardous policy ss4 movement and transportation reads new developments should be designed and located to minimize the impact on the transport Network in terms of traffic and pedestrians the two driveways will considerably compromise the safety of residents whether they be on foot or in cars core strategy os1 os2 os3 SC1 reads to improve the health and well-being and quality of life for all residents by ensuring new developments positively contribute towards ensuring safer communities regrettably this application has not improved the quality of life for residents who have repeatedly found recurring applications and are repeatedly having to raise objections two applications on this site were turned down by Herford planning department and later further refused by an inspector at appeal the proposal would have a serious impact on the surrounding environment and The Wider Community I believe the application constitutes overcrowding and overdevelopment on the garden of a semidetached house and is not in keeping with the properties in the immediate facility the addition of further dwellings right in the center of such an already established extremely busy residential and Commercial area is a serious cause for concern also the proposed dwellings would be in extreme proximity to each other with differing elevations with mainly Pathways as boundaries between them there’s only I gathered this morning 1.3 meter space between between 1 H2 and the new proposed three-bedroom house I’m not quite sure how how that how Emergency Services would cope with that should should there be a need for it I don’t know my attention has been drawn to the boundary of 182 ladbury Road being incorrect at the top of the garden so we’ll have to address that issue but I am raising it now I happen to know of three accidents this year around the vicinity of the shops one where a motorcyclist was hit by a car and police and ambulance attended another where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist and sustained quite serious injuries the third two cars colliding now I don’t I I’m not all I’m not always informed about accidents but these are three that I actually know about I did request an RTA road traffic accident report from the planning department with a number of recent accidents what I was given was only up until 2022 um as I said I don’t get to hear about every accident but I can assure the committee I consider the bottom of Quarry Road is an accident Hotpot the most dangerous in my ward we cannot gamble with the safety of pedestrian and motorists and residents by approving this application the infrastructure of the road cannot accommodate additional new properties and more Vehicles the problem is you’ve got parking and it’s literally just off the pavement and most people they tend to just drive in where there’s no maneuver there’s no space to maneuver to get out if you drive in you’d have to reverse out onto that area which is doesn’t bear thinking about okay um now the infrastructure just can’t really accommodate it now an architect can change and modify the layout o of possible dwellings but the fundamental problem here is the location so hence the television program location location location this s ly cannot be changed I have no problem with developments in spacious Gardens but on this particular site it cannot possibly work okay thank you and I look forward to hearing the debate thank you thank you and now we open the debate speakers no one councelor Baker then councelor thank you Mr chairman I had some concerns about this application when I first read the report but the site visit yesterday allayed those fears and made the whole application look clearer to me um I’ve always had concerns about what we used to call backland development I don’t know if they call it that anymore but uh but this is I think the application itself and the officer’s report overcomes the main concerns regarding backland developments and such as overcrowding overdevelopment poor design etc etc um I think this this application with regard to the the three bed house attached to the existing semi detached uh I don’t have a problem with that there’s plenty of room for it it’s on the main Frontage and there is let I say plenty of room The Bungalow at the back back I suppose would have some concerns bearing in mind the the the land at the back slopes upwards towards the the rear of the property U I imagine that that that slope will be dug out and so the Bungalow itself will be lowered down and won’t have such an impact to on the surrounding area maybe the officer can confirm that later on uh there are two off street parking spaces which is to be applauded and it’s always a bonus um Council of Foxton makes much of the uh the urban sprawl of that this particular area but of course if you’re going to live in an urban area you’re going to have to put up with Road Junctions and traffic and parking etc etc and those of us who don’t live in the urban areas well we don’t understand it possibly but um we’ve all done it I’m sure but we have to cope with these sort of things and I can’t see that there’s going to be additional Danger with the building of of these sorry rather with the development of these two buildings and with that in mind I fully support the officer’s recommendation to approve the application thank you thank you councilor Andrews thank you chair as has already been said this application is not new it’s been be come before those of us have been around a long time twice had been turned down by the planning planning uh inspectorate it’s a very a back Garden of small comparatively small cramped site I think it might just about accommodate one dwelling but three-bedroom house will be extremely close proximity to its next door neighbor I’m surprised that the width we have just been given it seemed a lot narrower on when we did the site visit I really feel that this is an overdevelopment of a of two houses are an overdevelopment of this very small size right and perhaps one one Bungalow might just be accommodated thank you councelor Thomas and councelor Simmons yeah I don’t I don’t know how many you read it read what we’ve been sent there’s two details on it which are um extremely worrying first of all there is a main sewer that runs behind 132 not in front behind apparently according to the Welsh water you can’t build within 3 m of that so where do you put the car park both the car the car park if if it’s that where it is or The Bungalow would be on top of it whichever there’s some major technical problems there another of the conditions is that of the Builder vehicles must be catered For well there is nowhere other than than competing with the car park um for the shops that they can have their thing if this is timber frame you will have a massive crane to put in all the timber frame that’s that’s another thing the other thing is the uh spay cannot be achieved for the Bungalow because you’ve got a neighbor’s fence high fence which comes right to the pavement so therefore you cannot get your 2.4 m in so there are quite a few technical problems on this one I I agree agree with the local Council it is very much compressed into a very small area The Bungalow will probably be as suris will be sold to elderly couple you’re going to have a very steep slope off the pavement down into the house that is again is very diff difficult I I have severe reservations about this Mr chairman Council Simmons thank you chair um I was the opposite to councilor Baker I actually didn’t have too many concerns looking at the plan but once I got on site there were a few queries um that I’ve directed towards uh Laura the case officer um I’m not sure that they’ve been satisfactory clarified in my mind particularly with regard to The Bungalow parking um as councelor Thomas has said there is a very high fence along with number 144 Cory Road um so whilst the visibility display has been um achieved for highways in terms of the road anyone coming out of that space won’t be able to see who’s coming along the footpath which is my concern as we said there’s lots of children that walk up and down there there is no turning space it is a reverse in Reverse out um sorry you’d have to reverse in to be able to drive out and your Bonnet would already be across the pathway however that is how a lot of houses are designed without turning space oray um the lamp post is clearly within that space which will then obstruct visibility um so I I appreciate you saying it doesn’t affect the maneuverability however it will affect the visibility um particularly on that section as we’ve as we’ve already said there’s a lot of parking um the boundary treatment and I thank you for the condition put in um and taking that on board I think in line with biodiversity net gain I’d like to see that as a Green Boundary um landscape rather than hard boundary um the distance between the dwellings fronting onto um Ley Road Direction I think it’s you say 1.3 M um I think wheelchair access is 1.2 meter minimum um with ideally with a turning area which this doesn’t achieve because of the development being that close um Telegraph 2.4 meters couldn’t be achieved and it’s only only just uh possible um I’m I’m still unsure if there’s any further debate I’d like to to hear what people say thank you thank you councelor Stone thank you Mr chairman I wonder if we can have some more details from the highway officer about recent collisions in the area the local members mentioned these three accidents that she’s aware of um and mentions that the statistics got up to 2022 I’d like to hear a little bit more detail about these and what the situation is there I’m also very concerned about the fact that there’s the fish and chip shop opposite and I should think on a Friday and Saturday evening it’s going to be incredibly busy out there not just with lots of people going there but lots of traffic as well with nowhere to park then you’ll have the possible new development there with people coming in and out um cars possibly blocking their driveways and the Very steep nature of the hill and just looking at it on site and looking at that fish and chip shop and how busy it’s likely to be um I’ve got concerns that um this is the wrong development in the wrong area thank you chairman thank you any other speakers oh yes let G uh hello um with regards to the accidents there have only been three accidents in the past five years and there haven’t been any accidents since 2022 um so the accidents um are as shown on the plan um on the screen um and uh they consist of a uh car and a um a bicycle um a car basically the um the car was parked outside the chip shop and quir Road um I was parked uphill um the vehicle contained a driver and three young children the driver pulled out from the front of the shop and turned left attempting to make a U-turn in the road a 12-year-old cyclist was coming down towards Ley Road at speed on his way home from school the cyclist brakes were defective and he couldn’t stop and was struck by the off side of the vehicle um he has small Grays on his forehead all all the accents are slight Accents in severity um the second accident um was a vehicle was traveling along Ley Road and was stationary indicating left turn into their driveway um the driveway checked the mirrors and the road is clear as they have started to turn into the driveway um a second uh a male youth on a push bike who was cycling on the pavement collided with her um and the third accident um the driver had come to stop at the junction of Cy Road um to Ley Road when their foot slipped off the brake pedal and hit the accelerator causing the car to pull forward Crossing Road and striking the Gate of 107 ly Road um again it was a slight accident and it was um the car was an automatic and the driver was wearing slippers at the time of the incident so um I None of the accidents I think are there’s no no accent history that that um has common features other councelor Simmons sorry I just want to say um in support uh additional two vehicles doesn’t add to the highways networks um we can’t look at this in terms of existing defects on the highway existing parking um I do feel that I would rather see development in the urban area than us constantly building on our Greenfield sites so in that respect I feel positive at the scale of development um and particularly a bungalow we do need those Within the area for our aging population as well um I’d just like to add those in thank you any other speakers councelor B just a quick question I I brought up during my session earlier on about the the height of the Bungalow at the rear will that ground be dug out to reduce the height of that Bungalow um I think there will be a need to obviously level that site we we can put a slab level condition on but you would normally cut into that rather than build it up so we would we can add a condition to to that effect to ensure that that is the case Thomas just coming back back to that Bungalow the actualplay I did notice standing there yesterday the pavement coming down Quarry Road which um is is level doesn’t slope to the road it doesn’t slope in slopes out when you’re Heavy Rain I should think the most amazing amount of water comes down that pavement that because of where it is because of display because of your entrance is going to have to go down into it you’re going to get considerable amount of flooding problems there that’s another thing I think to be considered any other speakers we haven’t had yet a um proposal oh the council Baker was near to a proposal um all right is there a second there no second right we come back to this of having planning reasons for refusal yeah I need someone to recommend refusal and to give planning reasons for refusal Andrews then councelor right well I will recommend refusal uh partly the only one I’ve got written down here is sd1 is just Safeguard residential immun immunity I think the proposed dwell two dwellings will form a very cramped form of of accommodation with no adequate immunity space for the residents of either the three-bedroom house or the or the proposed two-bedroom Bungalow and I think councelor Foxton has provided several um reasons also I I will second that on what we’ve already heard um sd1 fs6 ld1 np1 ss4 just a little bit [Laughter] slower well um sd1 fs6 L D1 np1 she parking ss4 those are all reasons that are already been given yeah just clarify those I think so SD wer so I think what you’re going back to is the previous reason for refusal f with me second so sd1 um which looks at amenity and design um so you’ve talked about um uh residential amenity in terms of uh the uh cramp form of development with no adequate space for amending okay amen okay LD one um which relates to sort of townscape and Landscape sort of the the design and how that fits in the in the surrounding area it would be potentially you know good to expand upon that if you can um I think you f uh ss6 um and you mentioned SS 4 but I think you and what was the other one mt1 you said Highway mt1 it is okay so mt1 um so SS the previous reason for refusal was based on sd1 ld1 and ss6 um and that looked at the um carrot of the area and the amenity issues is and then mt1 if you want to expand a little bit please on the highways issues and what your concerns are from the debate I I think it’s more about pedestrian um additional accesses and and the complexity of the area and potential pedestrian conflict with pedestrians I I think the anxieties are that the because as already been said they will have to drive in and reverse out as this is an extremely busy Junction and it’s although highways people don’t agree I think very likely to cause a lot of a lot of conflict okay I think just I will just draw your attention back to the fact that the of the appeal there was two accesses that were proposed there was not reason for refusal on highways ground previously local residents raised that as an issue and the um appeal inspector did consider that um and and said that they didn’t feel that there was an issue with that um I appreciate there’s a slight the very subtle change in where those are but if you know is whether or not you want to go ahead and refuse on that highways ground or whether you’re content to refuse purely on the design amenity and sort of character issues that you’ve raised about overdevelopment or overcrowding is the word you use overcrowding that what is stronger than the highways one as for the design it’s fairly fairly sort of standard design that you see all over so it’s very similar in fact to several others it’s neither not particularly imaginative but it’s just I should be feel that two houses on that backland that back Garden is just overdevelopment offering a poor quality of living for the residents and I just wonder as I say we told the path is 1.3 M it certainly didn’t look like it um I I agree um on that one the distance between the new proposed house and the existing 148 is it or 142 um there steps there there’s there’s two steps up into that house you cannot so those steps have to remain there that’s the only entrance to that house so you can’t uh where are you going to put the steps you have no access what whatsoever um as regards ambulance or disabled or anything like that so you are making a um a no-go area to the door right when me this clear the the overcrowding um concerns I think are the strongest um Point um whatever we do you do if you’re going to refuse things don’t put in things just for the sake of it because because it it detracts from the the de the decision and uh doesn’t help in if it goes to appeal right we’ve got that the overcrowding are there any other firm planning reasons well I would have to say drainage but obviously at the moment um um drainage company haven’t actually identified where the main drain is par according to their to what is written by Welsh water there are two drains one is for roof water and one is for um sewage they’re not quite sure where it runs they only know it runs at the back of the house if it so therefore that alone may completely scuttled The Bungalow the other thing is to um it’s all the Welsh water have said that there must be soakaways which is standard today cannot go into the foul water drainage system you have to by regulations have your soakaways 6 M away from the property there’s no way you can get there isn’t six MERS in any direction to get a SOA way in so drainage I think is also a main reason for refusal m g yeah we we haven’t got um technical comments on that I mean those are matters that would be picked up by building RS and along along the way and sometimes it’s not an unusual situation for um Welsh water to identify the location of drains or infrastructure but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be moved or altered um under license or under agree with agreement with W water um I I would stray away from dealing with a a drainage reason for refusal on this it’s a technical matter that would be picked up with building RS and it’s for you know the applicant would need to satisfy that we wouldn’t override you making a decision here today wouldn’t override the needs for that so I know what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s a reason if we should form a reason for refusal right we’ve got a reason um unless there are any others we’ll go move towards vote perhaps any further comments from the officers no nothing further for me Council Foxton now thank you for the debate I rest my case and I put my trust and faith in your good considered decision making when voting for this application thank you right we have a resolution before the committee um those in favor of the resolution please show refusal yes against two extensions that is carried move on to the next item we were going to have an adjournment but we’ve um at this point I think it’ll be better after the next item just a moment while officers move and take their places you want some water okay I think we’re all in place now can I now request the public speakers present in person for the agenda item seven meet join the meeting Miss Davis Mr Frankle Miss prro is she she’s not speaking oh and Mr and Mr Butterworth delegated all right all right and and and Mr Butterworth if you could take your good morning and welcome to the meeting I’ll call you to speak following the officer’s presentation Mr Lewis is going to be the officer dealing with this matter thank thank you chair good morning morning all and thanks to all members who came out for the site visit yesterday um this application as you’ll sure be be aware is referred to planning committee on the basis that the council is the applicant uh it seeks full permission for the creation of a new transport Hub public realm Works Associated infrastructure alterations on land associated with Herford railway station the application site totals approximately 1.8x hectors and is sandwiched between the railway Corridor and the a465 City Link Road on the north side of the city center Center uh indicated by the red star on the slide above next slide please red linal site and the surrounding area uh you can see the site is regular in shape and we can roughly break it down into three zones working from left to right on the top plan uh area one is a parcel of land currently used as uh storage Depot by Network rail uh which is link to the station area by a narrow tract of land behind the medical center and MFA Bowl zone two is the main project area located to the four of the station building currently occupied by parking and drop off areas and large areas of informal hard standing and then zone three comprises the NCP uh Station Car Park which is located behind the city living student accommodation building next slide please so to briefly set some context uh the uh particularly of the main area project area to the four of the station uh to the top left we can see the station building when viewed from the opposite side of the City Link Road near Morrison Supermarket so this is the main pedestrian approach to the station from the Town Center the top right then shows the station and its areas of hard standing when viewed from the station Medical Center bottom left we can see the station from station approach and bottom right stood from the main entrance to the station looking back out towards the Link Road and the Royal Mail sorting office uh it’s worth noting at this point the station building is listed at grade two uh but the site is not within a conservation area next slide please so to turn to the application itself uh the proposal is for the creation of the transport Hub which seeks to provide facilities to enhance transfer between rail bus Road cycling foot and other modes of travel uh it also seeks to reconfigure the public realm and generally help facilitate uh movements between transport modes and to generally improve the character of the area in high level terms the provision of a transport Hub uh has long been a long-standing aim of the council is included within the 2015 core strategy as the adopted development plan key extracts from those policies are set out on this slide uh but briefly ss4 identifies a transport Hub alongside the Link Road as a major scheme in supporting policy aims to reduce congestion improve air quality road safety and to offer greater transport choices HD2 goes on to state that as part of the city Center’s regeneration the council would in partnership with public transport operators will deliver an integrated transport interchange close to the railway station HD3 dealing with movement in Herford sets out that the council will use a variety of funding mechanisms to deliver works such as public realm improvements improvements to public transport in infrastructure which uh overall aim to promote better integration between bus rail and road so it’s clear therefore that the general proposal to deliver a transport Hub fully aligns with the council’s policies and objectives as well as the uh wider policies Beyond planning uh such as those in the local transport plan so in Broad terms it’s considered the principle of development on this land is clearly supported by policy slide uh next slide please so to the uh specific details of the proposal um there are quite a few elements to this which we discussed on site yesterday but I’ll just work through them again here um the key elements include the creation of a drive-in reverse out or a Dio bus interchange that will have capacity for four bus baces and and is cited on the land between station building and the medical center uh buses entering that that area enter via the existing access from City Link Road uh behind the medical Hub before before traveling behind that building and Into The Interchange area which will then be restricted for uses by buses only uh the formation of new access will then take place onto the city Leng Road off The Interchange uh that will serve as a the exit for the bus interchange area there’d also be three on Street bus stops created along the Link Road including a 12 seat weather glazed screen for waiting passengers there also so be a provision of a drop off area to the four of the station uh which would be accessed off station approach that would include parking provision for six taxies seven disabled spaces uh and then further provision for core for taxi spaces and disabled spaces in the larger NCP car park we would also see improvements to the public realm uh for court area between the station and the Link Road that would include uh increased cycle storage so from 44 spaces currently up to 144 proposed 66 which be be covered and 78 uncovered we’d also have uh realtime passenger information boards Barrel bike stands uh seating areas gener general public space and Landscaping next slide please uh to consider the the shelter building this includes a uh section showing its height relative to the the station which I don’t think is coming through on that plan but that’s what it should show um it’s it would have an L-shaped footprint with a canopy um measuring approximately 4 and half MERS in height it’ be predominantly open-sided with an enclosed waiting Hub uh at the northern arm providing enclosed waiting area for 30 seats uh that would also contain four toilets two of them accessible and a welfare area for the bus uh the bus and taxi operators next slide please uh and then The Layover proposal uh parcel which is beyond the uh medical Hub um this would be uh utilized the existing Junction off the City Link Road and the beyond that the road is reconfigured to provide access to the layover area as well as premises such as MFA bow this would serve as the access to the site for buses uh and The Layover area would essentially be an area of hard standing with spaces demarked for up to five coat buses uh providing parking and waiting for In the period between scheduled Services next slide please so um in terms of the key considerations unsurprising given the nature of the proposals that one of the main impacts is the potential impact upon highways and transport Network the most relevant policies in this regard have been set up in the report um it’s also highlighted the proposal has evolved since first submission and enlight of feedback from various consules whilst the fundamental access strategy remains largely un unchanged the changes we’ve seen during the application process include alterations to the alignment of the dro uh parking uh bus interchange which follows a stage one road safety audit to improve efficiency if efficiency of that area and uh to reduce conflict with other mood mode of Transport we’ve also seen alterations to parking allocations which has led to the drop off area at the center of the site being limited to taxes and disabled access only uh alongside that the provision has been made in the larger NCP car park for a 20 minutes free waiting period across the whole car park to accommodate General drop off and collections of passengers we’ve also seen an increased provision for covered cycle storage and generally changes to traffic management within the site to reduce cost conflict between the different modes of Transport it’s designed to accommodate following on from these changes there are no objections to the scheme offered by the local highways Authority in terms of maintaining the safe and efficient function of the network uh further details are requested in a number of areas such as specific design and uh construction specifications for cycle ways and other surfaces however these can be all secured by condition there were some questions on site yesterday regarding capacity of the bus interchange and I’ll just clarify those figures uh so it’s expect The Interchange will support seven Services an hour based on current Tim taing however the design has capacity to support up to 18 Services an hour if required so officers are satisfied that the arrangement has sufficient capacity to deal with the current but also to accommodate any future growth with needs be uh we’re also satisfied that the site is laid out in a manner which suitably SE segregates the bus interchange area from other modes of Transport in order to avoid conflict between maneuvering buses and and and any other um mode of Transport on the site in terms of supporting sustainable travel it’s noted that active travel England who are the government agency responsible for the promotion of sustainable travel initially offered an objection to the scheme however following the receipt of additional information they acknowledge their concerns are now addressed and they now recommend approval subject to conditions uh this includes for the submission of a travel plan for the station which will manage its strategy to promote sustainable transport in the future overall therefore it’s considered the proposal aligns with eject to the local plan uh to create The Interchange as well as the highway specific policies ss4 and mt1 uh it’s been designed in a manner which supports the safe and efficient function of the network and meets the differ needs of population and encourages the uptake of more sustainable and active travel choices next slide please considering the impact of the character of the area uh these photos show the Baseline conditions of the site currently uh it’s noted it’s currently informal and incon herent and uh I think not unfair to say that it doesn’t make for a particularly positive arrival uh in Herford so um so the de development therefore represents an opportunity to rectify this by improving the immediate environment of the station next slide please the proposals include for the comprehensive reconfiguration of the space to the four of the station uh as a planned public realm space which will provide Pro uh provision for passengers connecting between the different transport modes it also however provides communal spaces Street furniture and planting to generally improve the user experience essential infrastructure such as the main bus shelter the cycle storage all Associated signage has been positioned in a manner which avoids seeks to avoid clutter of the space or negatively impacting upon views of the gray two listed station the shelter in particular which is the largest structure on the site has been designed as a comparatively lightweight structure and a contemporary building which is wholly subordinate to the stal of station compared to the current Baseline position there’s extensive new planting of small to medium size uh shrubs proposed which would improve the immunity of the area and again the general user experience and it’s also noted that this strategy has been uh amended during the design process to minimize maintenance require maintenance requirements and promote longevity taken together uh it’s considered the public realm and Landscaping proposals are appropriate and there are no objections offered by the council’s landscape officer in terms of impact upon the sitting of the grade two listed station again again it’s considered that the proposal as a whole would serve to generally enhance the setting of this asset there are no objections in that regard from Heritage consult te’s including from historical historic England or the council’s own conservation officer conditions are recommended to secure the uh final design of cover the covered cycle parking and also the color finishes of the shelter building but subject to this officers consider that the policies regards to Heritage are met and the duties upon the council uh to the setting the listed building and fulfilled next slide please a further matter of requiring cons consideration is the interplay of the proposals with the the root of the former herur and Gloster Canal uh this has been noted with the office of reports but policy HD2 sets out the reg the Regeneration of the city center will be compl complemented by a number of other measures which includes the creation of a canal Basin tourism policy E4 also sets out the historic Route of the canal will be safeguarded and that amongst other things development not connected with the canal that would prevent or predice the rest of ation of a continuous route will not be permitted it is accepted by officers of development conflicts with historic and safeguarded route of the canal and this is largely result of the layover space to the northwest of the site policy E4 therefore requires that consideration should be given as to whether this would prevent or Prejudice the restoration of a continuous route there are a number of factors and limitations to consider in this regard which are set out in the officer report in terms of the practicality and likelihood of the canal being restored to its former alignment along this space that includes the position and levels of the Link Road the presence of buildings on the historic Route such as the medical center the presence of strategic sewers on the original alignment of the canal these factors suggest to officers that the restoration of of this section in particular is unlikely to take place and officers are not aware of any firm proposals to that effect instead it’s understood the aspiration is likely to be to create a terminous basin on land to the west of the lay oversight this has been reflected in the recent approval of student accommodation on land to the Northwest where parcel land has been set aside for the formation of a basin as shown on the bottom image as part of the design process the location of the lay layover area has been shifted to the North in an effort to reduce conflict with his potential terminous bation should a proposal come forward to fru in the future to reinstate it it’s also noted the scope of development required to deliver the layover space which is essentially a Kinder a car park is relatively limited and there therefore be increased scope to make alterations to this should it be needed in the future subject to landed or consent so taking all of this into account officers are satisfied The Proposal will not prevent or Prejudice the restoration of the continuous route of the former canal and do not find any conflict with policy4 next slide please so just to Briefly summarize uh other matters uh the details of proposal have been assessed with all relevant consules and there are no objections offered uh the scheme would not be adversely affected by or contribute to flood risk and we have an acceptable drainage strategy to the satisfaction of Welsh waterer and the council’s drainage engineer the drainage scheme along with construction management methods to be secur by condition also ens saw there be no adverse impacts upon protected species or the nearby environmental asset assets such as the wide Marsh Brook local Wildlife site or the river ysac and there are no objections from ecology or Natural England in this regard uh the scheme is also had regard to the previous developed nature of the land and considered potential remediation needed for possible contamination issues which again are secured by condition to the satisfaction of environmental health Team uh the sustainable use of of Brownfield land is also a benefit which attracts strong policy support and ways in favor of the scheme the location and nature of the proposal is such it’s not considered development would have any deal impact upon the immedi of nearby residents and finally uh it is noted that we have received a number of representations and objections and the common theme Within These is uh the commentary on the council’s role as the applicant and developer including whether the council aligns with the proposal the C The council’s Wider priorities questions regarding the use of funds whether the proposal is the most preferable op option uh to create a transport Hub with a variety of Alternatives put forward it is highlighted however that these are not necessarily relevant planning considerations uh and the application is to be determined on its own merits with regards to current policy to uh to summarize therefore um the local plan makes clear provision for the support of a transport Hub and and this scheme aligns with these objectives it would regenerate an underutilized and unattractive parcel of land in a prominent City location in order to deliver a transport interchange that meets the sustainable transport goals of the council in doing so there are significant benefits delivered which contribute towards achieving the social economic and environmental objectives of sustainable development the approve uh application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions in your report thank you thank you now can I invite Miss Davis to speak on behalf of her city council thank you chair um I speak on behalf of city council and my name is Karen Davis um any reference to the council will be with reference to Herford city thank you uh Herford city council has objected to this application whilst it is fully in support of an integrated transport um Hub it feels that the proposal as put forward fails to deliver that uh by failing to maximize use of the space that it is available um concerns have been raised by the members that the four Bay Bus Bays is insufficient for future proofing um of the U model shift and is not encouraging sustainable transport and should uh the um country bus station um be closed in the future with it moved to uh the uh site then um for Bay seems um to the members to be uh shortsighted and inadequate at this point um so sorry your pardon this undermines the council’s published policies regarding the development of public transport and its illegal obligations to seek to ameliorate the climate emergency uh there are particular concerns for City because we have the provision of the zip zipper bus which is um electric bus um provided for people um through the city and coming into the railway station uh this is electric and is free to use and is very popular service and as it stands at this moment in time there is no provision within the transport Hub itself for the zipper to collect and drop off um customers at the station whereas currently if you arrive by the station or depart By The Station you can be dropped off and collected right at the door um this uh proposal puts the zipper bus out um in a remote layby on the um side of the City Link Road which seems to be a very regressive step from that which is already provided and we would encourage um the applicant to reconsider the provision for the zipper bus and place it right in front of the station um to enable the customers to use it um the um members also feel that there is inadequate provision for taxes and cars picking up passengers um and the cycle storage facility which I believe that uh the uh officer has um covered does appear to now be clarified um uh the a major concern was also um excessive planting and the designs appearing to be confused between that of a transport Hub and uh and and Desiring of a community garden and uh it is suggested that perhaps uh that could be uh modified to increase um uh additional bus Bays which would address the concerns first raised um so the request to the council is the proposal as put forward be um refused um and we urge uh the council to seek um an alternative improved scheme from that proposed particularly to accommodate the um I’m sorry you reached your three minutes thank you thank you thank you can I now invite Mr frel to speak in objection to the application you have three minutes thank you Mr chairman um I’m will frel of rail and bus for herriage here um we’re an objector and I’m also speaking for two other registered objectors Herford uh Civic society and Carol proo we all support the development in principle of a transport Hub on this site but we have serious concerns about details of the proposal I shall be referring to the arap rebuttal dated 19th of March uh within the bus shelter there is a 30s building which includes a waiting room and toilets with no full-time oversight these areas will inevitably attract unsocial Behavior some of you will know that the fairf free zipper buses have already had such problems and they have the continuous oversight of the driver a changing places toilet could and should have been included in this scheme for the designers to dismiss this opportunity by claiming it could be accommodated within the station buildings is to neglect the needs of up to 25% of heritage’s Aging population lack of segregation is another issue the safety of this proposal depends on the segregation of pedestrians from vehicles and cars from buses the design submitted fails in this respect the network rail parking staff leaving the network rail car park will be tempted to avoid the lengthy prescribed route with its chicane and take the direct exit via the D IO area this is a serious floor in the layout which should have been identified and eliminated early in the design process a prerequisite of safe Dro operation is that only buses and coaches can enter the reversing area and all other vehicles are physically prevented from doing so the Arup rebuttal states that the requirement to retain the network rail parking in its current location was agreed with network Rail and transport for Wales that’s like the grandall tower designers saying there was a requirement to use inflammable cladding who will Monitor and enforce the exclusion of cars from the Dio emergency access the drawings show an emergency access Lane right across the dedicated pestan area in front of the station however we understand that Network rail is insisting on regular use of this Lane to load and unload rail replacement coaches this is another example of the designers failing to engage with networ rail in this case to prevent large vehicles coming into conflict with heavy pedestrian flows official guidance on these matters is contained in the National policy National planning policy framework and local plan policy mt1 these both require the internal layout of sites to consider and manage the safety of all users this proposal clearly lacks integration both internally and externally an alternative layout is available which eliminates the serious safety issues outlined above it would also better deliver the scheme’s objective of modal shift to buses within the Herford City so in conclusion this proposal is flawed in a number of respects some of which are dangerous and I urge you to reject it thank you thank you Mr frel and now I invite Mr Butterworth the appan agent to speak thank you you have three minutes in April 2022 a project team on behalf of the council set about preparations for the third and final element of works as part of the Herford City Center transport package for the delivery of a new transport Hub at Herford railway station through this application it is considered that the wider strategic policy objectives of enabling economic growth reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable travel and healthier lifestyle can now be achieved and initial 12 layout options for the scheme were considered each with their own challenges after care careful consideration and consultation with relevant technical consules including the highways Authority the drive-in reverse out option was selected the design of the scheme places highway safety at its Forefront and provides a clear direct and functional transport solution for Herford which maximizes the Heritage value of the grade two listed station building both of which are key planning considerations for the addressed um planning policy considerations that have been addressed in accordance with with national and local planning policy the proposed development has carefully considered these aspects in its design which seeks to reduce the use of vehicles but directs vehicular movements to the site periphery for ease of pickup and drop off and also offer undisturbed pedestrian access through the for court area the design aimed to support a capacity increase from the current seven buses per hour to 12 but the designers managed to present a system capable of 50 buses per hour this can e easily accommodate all the capacity of the country bus station should that facility no longer be required feedback from several bus providers requested an alternative stop away from the dyro bays and more accessible from the City Link Road hence the inclusion of three new bay bus stops on the road to minimize the potential for Bays being occupied for long periods and following feedback from National bus companies additional bus layover space was designed to occupy the old Network rail Depot site the area will incorporate ducted work to support electric charging of buses for future use five information displays would be strategically positioned around the site to provide real-time travel information for buses and trains enhancing user experience likewise we have worked closely with a recognized Heritage consultant to ensure that the proposed development safeguards key views and station approaches towards the southeast and celebrate the beauty of the listed station building it is considered that the proposed development would achieve this through the Simplicity of the canopy design which offers a lightweight minimal touch that offered open views and St and uh of the station from all angles in summary this application represents the delivery of a high quality form of sustainable development which places active travel at its core and celebrates the immediate historic environment through its simple contemporary design all technical objections have been addressed through through the determination process and the development is in accordance with the adopted development plan thank you the local board member for the the is councelor pulie Andrews she has the right to begin um she has a time limit of 10 minutes at the beginning and she has five minutes at the end of the debate councilor Andrews thank you chairman I hope I don’t take too too long we’ve already heard a great deal first can I thank those of you who attended the site visit yesterday and at least it wasn’t raining and can I also thank Adam Adam Lewis and Mr Butterworth because I’ve had meetings with them both prior to all this to try and clarify things first of all I would like to say that as principal I support the principle of a sorely needed transport Hub with Frontage improvements to the station which is much much needed as the station Approach at the moment is a to total me is a total mess and must give newcoms arriving at the city station a very poor impression indeed of our city however I do feel that this current proposal misses a what probably a once only opportunity to develop what I would call a proper fullscale transport hub for the city a true transport Hub would have all buses bus services for the city calling in at some time so that passengers arriving at the station would not have to track either to Tesco or even or St Peter Square to connect with other bus services going forward and I previously I as I understand that only those Services which currently use the County bus station will actually come into the Hub on more specific points like others I feel that only four bus parking spaces at the station are rather inadequate particularly if the uh National Express coaches are there they are bigger coaches they will have to park at this end each end because National Express coaches load luggage at the side so they will need access to the sides of the coach I I stood and waited one day half an hour to count the number of buses that were coming in and out uh six came in within 30 minutes I also find that the three bus services including the zipper will have to park at a near newly created layby on the main City Link Road is not perhaps the best idea um uh bus lab the bus layby area bus lay over area is planned to be provided on the west side of the herant Medical Group which counselors yesterday saw that the access road is already used as an auxiliary sparking space for for h h um the medic the Medical Group which would and I may also add I’ve just been asked by the practice manager of the Medical Group to meet with her to discuss the parking problems of the Medical Group there is planned a new exit for for the bus for the buses onto the City Link Road this means that there will be three exits on the City Link Road within about 100 yards so cyclists and um Walkers will have to watch what they’re where they’re going I understand also that taxes will as now be able to access a station forart to deposit and collect passengers how will ordinary motorists be prevented from doing this they’re used to doing it now and if they see taxes doing it I’m sure there will just a follow suit however I am extremely pleased to see see that far more adequate cycle parking has parking has been provided I only wish that a bit more of it could be Undercover the plans to prove the immediate station in Frontage are welcome but I am glad that the original idea of Scots Pines and apple trees has been abandoned didn’t seem to me to be a very good idea to have fruit dropping all over the place uh the glass shelter that be being designed as a seethrough part of it is is going to be a a rest area for the drivers coach drivers and for the public with toilets included I’m glad to say but the rest of it is going to be open is this just simply going to add as a wind tunnel however it may be thought that even with its the inadequacies we work on the principle that in fact half a loaf is better than no bread at all that even this transport Hub will be better than the current existing situation in front of the station Hub so I another point I meant to mention the roads that the bues will come out of that as you will have seen there is an island in the middle that part of that will have to go if the buses are going to turn right into the City Link Road I just a thought perhaps a couple of the Apple the tubs of that are there could be pre be repurposed in front of the uh station be some use for them anyway I’m I’m going to listen very much to the debate because I think it should be very interesting thank you and now I open the sorry if you could go back to the gallery sorry I do again right we’ll open the debate councelor Foxton Thomas and then Simons thank you for the presentation Adam and the inordinate amount of work and time that’s gone into presenting the transport Hub the picture on page 122 namely 1.4.2 is the perfect illustration of Young Prince Charles’s famous quote a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved friend and looks cheap and Torry the whole layout vividly illustrates the quote a square peg in a linear hole the design fails on the following points one even though there’s plenty of space for the coaches to drive drive through the plan means the coaches have to reverse and maneuver out of a tight space two four stands are insufficient there’s limited scope for future enlargement if needed passengers have to walk 40 m across the main coach exit route to get to the waiting room lavatory block bus stands hardly integrating it with the station absence of two small changing rooms and male female cyclists uh sufficient number of bicycle stands but out in the open no mention of space for disabled electric mobility scooters the waste ground Northwest of the station Medical Center for coach parking which should be ring fenced for future Canal Basin the Herford Civic Society proposal is the alternate scheme development namely 3.3 on page 137 is exactly what’s needed with possibly the following modifications the cycle Hub should be underground with a Subway under the exit bus stands to the waiting area the sore tooth design should be finished off with a covered semi-open walkway from the waiting area to each stand the design of this will be critical to the scheme’s success for example to be like cloysters with brick stone carved pillars to match the station building and arches to be shaped like the gothic pointed Windows the roof roof slope and materials to match the main station building now even tesos in bu Street have well-designed covered walkway along the shop souths side with pillars and pitched roof the roof of the covered walkway could mirror the station platform roofs supported with large round cast iron pillars and ornamental cast iron similar to the classic design at Great mvin station platform the walkways are obviously extending from The Waiting rooms and are attached to the front of the station rooms to seamlessly blend in with the architecture of the main station building just another Point Herford Cathedral managed this with a beautifully designed mapamundi Museum thank you I just ask a slight a technical question of Adam you you did a very good presentation yesterday but you said something now that is slightly confusing the existing entrance to the medical center will be the new entrance to the bus for the buses that’s correct yes where is the entrance to the medical center going to be because there’s nothing shown on this map um it’s it’s it’s not there in terms of um sorry it’s not shown on the it is it remains as currently if I if we can get the the uh the relevant slide on the screen um probably best so yeah on on this screen here yeah give Kelly U so it’s not s of shown in the great detail because it falls outside of the application site um but the building there you can see to the four near this link Road that’s the medical center its access will remain as existing so when a bus enters a site off the Link Road it will come through that existing Junction pass the turn to the medical Hub um if it’s going into the lay area layover area it will then turn left into that or if it’s going to the main Hub it will carry on around the back uh to the right to the to the interchange okay well obviously they will have to stop parking because it was full up of cars yesterday so um I like the other speakers I a brilliant idea we’ve got to have it and I was a frequent um visitor to Europe there many many U cities that have got this it’s and it it I think the design is to say the least poor um I have to agree that uh on uh with my colleague next door that the one put up by the Harford Civic Society 137 is a far better design one thing this idea of reverse a Drive In Reverse out for buses no that’s an absolute no no for safety because I know that all buses have the the uh warning on the back but no people rushing to get buses I think somebody’s can very easily be knocked down there’s masses of room there for a proper drivein drive out type scheme the other thing that I find the present drop off space which is already been mentioned is is perfect where it is it’s never abused people come in drop off there or pick up and go the new one um in the present NCP car park is too far away for people that if if they’re coming with large suitcases it’s not even ground it’s uphill um I think that’s a very poor design so I’m all in favor of the Hub but I really do think that the they need to go back to design on this one and actually come up with a design which is probably going to be more used this is a county state railway station remember not just a city one it’s a county one more people will come in by cars because they’ve got to come in from the countryside and I think it’s just woful inadequate on the design so that’s my opinion on that one thank you Council s thank you chair and thank you to Adam for yesterday’s um site visit and for detailed report um I do not think this is the perfect scheme and I really do appreciate the um input of Herford Civic society and their suggestion and the Canal Trust um their representations in terms of trying to provide a a better transport Hub I I do think it’s important um to recognize that the scheme design has had to deal and address as I can see um not just a transport hub for the buses but also the historic setting of the building um and also the community space I I think it has achieved putting pedestrians at the center of that space I have con some concerns uh which I think could be shared by my colleague um with regard to students particularly using the front of the student accommodation and accessing across that section there I I don’t think um if you look at where they currently travel I don’t think it’s quite sufficient um safety concern it’s I don’t think it’s quite captured their desire lines and how they access the station from the front of that space they don’t walk across to the crossing they’ll end up coming through the disabled and taxi area I suspect um I haven’t got an issue with the buses stopping on the main road in the new layby as long as there is sufficient signage as people come out of the Railway Station directing to where which service is in which location because obviously there’s the provision of the the Deo Bays plus those buses it can be confusing as to where which bus you’re getting from where so that that will need to be captured um there was reference by Adam earlier to 20 minutes um pickup drop off parking across the whole of the NCP car park I’d just like to clarify because I need to know how many spaces are currently allocated to drop off in front of the station how many will be given over in the the NCP car park and also just having uh use the train a lot um coming in late at night and being picked up by my other half quite frequently the trains are very late getting in uh you know well over 20 minutes um delaying getting there if people are traveling in from the rural area to kect to those services to pick up you quite find your you quite often find yourself waiting longer than 20 minutes so I think consideration needs to be given to a longer short stay for pickup rather than just 20 minutes uh so I want clarification of the number of spaces the the other issue is regarding the layover space um obviously there’s concerns about the Canal Trust and the deliverability of their Terminus Bas and um I do understand what you’re saying about that feasibility of that onwards and how that’s shaped I appreciate the consideration given there I would like to make sure that there is some Landscaping provision around that because at the moment nothing shown to screen the buses in that layover space from the main road so I would like to see a landscape provision in there and condition that there is some green planting to hide that because as it is the City Link Road is a car only space in my I’m afraid the three minutes is T thank you right are there any other speakers this particular Council Baker sorry I got you oh coun kennet first Ken first sorry K Kenard yes sry I knew that I did know that actually thank you all um really interesting discussion my one question is can we make any material changes at this point in time or is this already sorted and we would actually just be better off agreeing to it I I think very often in in developments like this there are minor changes take place during between planning prision amendments come and come and go and developments like this but do so yeah members can resolve to make um whatever you know decision they want to in terms of whether that’s for deferral or approval or refusal I think there’s obviously been through a lot of iterations of this they’ve considered carefully the the comments that have been made throughout this process and it’s probably been going on even longer than that in terms of those discussions that have been had um it’s you know something that we’re trying to the the council has the priority to try and move forward and it’s you know we we would need a clear steer as to why in its current form it’s not acceptable before we go back I think to a point of saying well it needs to be looked at again so my personally I think you should be looking at it to say is it acceptable in its current form if you don’t feel it is and you feel it should be refused then identify those for us um but those are they things to be considered so um again it’s in your gift to make a a resolution to defer but you would need to be really specific about what we’re looking at and and engaging in that process but it’s um look at it on it on its own merits at the moment sorry just to come back is is there a sort of a monetary time deliverable on that um um I’m not sure the specific uh time scales but I believe there is uh a deadline in terms of it’s tily leveling up funding and there are time limitations on that um as Kelly said um you there is there is scope to uh potentially make changes but there’s been a lot of discussion here about um you know whether it’s considered to be the right approach and different sort of opinions to that if we were to look to make changes they would need to be in response to legitimate planning reasons about safety or Zion rather than we think there’s a better way of doing it is all I would sort of add can I say something I mean the station I think is one of the Magnificent buildings it is a very fine building the idea that we’re going to do something in that style to compete or or complement it is is a nonsense um it just wouldn’t work I mean it would um detract from the actual building in itself and I do think that you know this has a sort of um plainness about it that doesn’t compete with the with the actual station itself I I’ve spent a lot of time looking at those chimneys um over the years um anyway councelor Baker thank you Mr chairman I’ve underlined three words here not before time we’ve been waiting for this for an awful long time I’m a bit angry with some of the comments I’ve heard on this application I don’t want to be too critical of some of the comments made but everyone’s an expert aren’t they especially when it comes to Major developments everyone’s got an idea and an opinion as to how something can be uh improved this matter has been discussed by experts in the field Arup are the people who designed it they’ve designed many similar um major development m in this country for many years uh surely we have to accept what they’ve had to say and this is the final draft of course this is this isn’t just been popped up after a couple of couple of weeks of people scribbling on the backs of envelopes this has this has been the result of much um involvement and debate and and and expert opinions and um I think if we refuse this today we will be seriously criticized but what then what happens then I mean the council can’t really go and appeal a decision made by our own people I mean it’d be daed and so I mean we have to bite the bullet and say this is what we’ve been asked to approve the drive-in reverse out system is used throughout the world at bus stations especially over if you go into Spain uh all the coaches where they pick up and drop off for the airports they all use this system and I’m sure others do in this country um but it’s everything’s been covered and I think I can’t see anything wrong with it there’s always little design details aren’t there but at the end of the day it’s a bus station or a bus Terminus in front of a very nice listed building and so I think we should bite the bullet and to say that this is what we’ve got and we should approve it that will be my recommendation councilor Davis I I propose that we accept it you um proposed that the officer’s recommendation is proposed is there a second councelor Baker further points councilors could I have an answer from Adam with regard to the timings number of Bays Etc that are currently provided how many are proposed to be provided and potential weight stay and confirmations to whether a condition on Landscaping can be included please yeah um so legal advisor want to say something first M Coy thank you chair I just wanted to remind members that when they’re deliberating that need to be mindful that matters of funding and time scales aren’t a matter for consideration by the planning committee so you need to confine your deliberations to the County merits of the scheme in front of you and whether or not you find that scheme acceptable thank you Mr thank you um yes so just looking at the uh sort of up to date area of images of the current arrangement of the station there are 11 um General drop off spaces and then 11 um uh disabled spaces as well um The Proposal I we discussed yesterday um in terms of increased provision in the uh n CP car park for for drop off um that is actually on clarification with the design team last night it’s actually proposed that that would be extended rather than having a dedicated area for drop off within that car park there would just be a 20 minute stay across the whole site so I understand there’s been a um a study undertaken in terms of capacity um and and a survey of generally the station you have to excuse me the number escapes was around 80% occupancy was the average of that station the Park so um there is generally accepted to be a degree of space in there that can be used for for drop off and pickups and in terms of landscaping uh yes by all means we could attach a condition uh to seek uh to reinforce that uh screening along the Link Road sorry I might have completely misunderstood that so you’re saying that 20 minutes across the whole Space so that will no longer become a long-term NCP car par oh no sorry so so it will still be long if you want to stay longer than 20 minutes you can still pay your your fee and stay um but if you are picking up you can stay 20 minute grace period without charge so there’ll be no dedicated Bays just for pickup drop off no dedicated Bays no okay that’s quite an issue for me because um that car park is pretty much full almost all the time um and therefore if there are no dedicated spaces you know people come and commute there for the whole day they get there early they park there for the whole day they come back late there is there no nowhere for people who are coming and picking up from the station particularly women or or vulnerable people coming back late and the children coming back late at night you can’t see who you’re picking up if they’ve come out of the station Etc I think I think cons is there anything we can do to change that because that’s I would I would expect at least 11 dropoff spaces to be secured that are only temporary dropoff spaces are not able to be used by long stay um that is something that we could reasonably condition in my opinion um so I think there is a with multiple stakeholders being involved with this having discussion with a project team and sort of carpart being control of another body that’s that’s sort of a potential uh what has influenced the arrangement we’ve got a proposal but but within being it within the project site then yes we could contr uh attach a condition to seek a a revised strategy in that area to ensure there is dedicated spaces just for the drop off purpose and I think just saying that so that’s 11 drop off plus 11 disabled access um I think you know we need to be looking at more than 11 spaces there’s currently 22 spaces of various types over the drop off so so please can we consider that and and this end of the car park in proximity to uh access to the station thank you yeah yeah I think that’s important is that agreeable to the proposal and second that those conditions um yes added to the recommendation sorry just to confirm as well the landscape about screening within the layover area uh yes we can see that by condition as well that’s accept is that’s acceptable both yes yes y counil cannot K Kenard yeah that’s what I did say um I still have issues with the desire lines of the students walking down through the front of the student accommodation and then as is on the proposed plans they would walk straight through the taxi rank um to the station because that’s exactly what they do right now um I just don’t see any sort of clear safe way for them toess access that um I was there picking up my kids a couple of months ago and saw a girl knocked over by a car just coming in off the City Link Road turning left and there were students all over the road and one of them got clipped I was going to say I think when we were dealing with the application for that student accommodation we knew that was going to be potentially a desire line and um it’s not obviously part of this application site and if people choose to do that they choose to to go across that they’ve given them a safe Route Around um I don’t know if I I know it came up at the time we were dealing with the application and certainly see see people make that that route we can we could take that away as a another look to see if there’s anything that can be done to do that but if they are crossing because it’s the shortest route across third party land which your Council does known it’s quite difficult to control where people will do that you can’t direct them into it you direct them to the foot path but they will walk across their I I mean you see it because they walk through and up the steps out the other side but um we can we can certainly take that away to talk to the design team about see if there’s a way to look at that anything else you wanted to add Katie sorry what you wanted yeah if we refuse this more criticized and and I think probably uh probably Justified I it is it isn’t a good design and I really do think that it is certainly there is a it as regards drop off is poorly designed as regards the number of spaces for buses and remembering that uh as already been pointed out uh National coaches are 57t long they big ones there’s one Park it’s just not it it’s not um user friendly then from any point of view I think there are so many points here that you know what it isn’t right for pedestrians it’s not right for drop off it’s not right for coaches the entrance are by the medical center is questionable there’s so many things about it and I really do think that we do need to well if anything defer this to get some of this design sorted out but no way that’s only my uh thank you chair just to clarify Adam the dero Bays there are no pedestrian routes behind the vehicle there are there’s no access pedestrian access along that bit it looks to me like it’s been designed with the majority of people coming to the front of the of the Bays uh no there have no access along there so the path that we walked along yesterday that borders with the car park to the medical center that would no longer be there so there’d only be pedestrian routes along the City Link Road and then obviously to the front of the bay where you access the buses and can I just clarify that access onto the the City Link Road I mean the City Link Road is just car is King it’s um very wide unpleasant environment but there is obviously the wide shared path that crosses there with the foot path cycleway um just want to check the priority will be to footway Cycle Way the buses to give way to that and can that be signed and managed um I would perhaps defer to my highways colleagues for clarification on that point uh I think I think it would just be a normal Highway code applies um and I I suspect in reality it’ll be a combination of um giving away sometimes pedestrians May sometimes bus M but um there certainly there’s the buses will be going very slowly um and yeah it it be down to Highway code um it be it’ll be it’ll be a crossover so it will appear that the footway continues um orbe there the tactile paving um so yeah it won’t be a sort of a a curb formal Junction it’ll be more of a more of a crossover okay so can I just check so that means that the surface treatment along there will show the sort of right of way it will give a stop to the bus drivers to think or is there a drop down onto the access that gives the bus the apparent like you say with a curbed the road coming out or is the sort of giveway signs for the bus prior to that footway cycleway and the treatment the color you can you can give priority in people’s trained change driver Behavior by ensuring that they can see where the the white line giveway signs are they’re either set back before the the footway cycle way or they’re on the actual City Link Road and that then gives a different uh prom to the driver yeah I don’t I don’t think the giveway line won’t won’t be a formal giveway line before the the the crossing um but the I think the surfacing will be more um more of a sort of a shared surface I suppose so that the bus is aware that it’s crossing a a a for cycle footway um yeah I mean this is something that can be considered during the 278 process so if if there is a preference for sort of uh any giveway lines or or something to go before the the cycle way then we can work with that in the 278 process i’ would really appreciate that Katie thank you for the clarification I would like the section 278 Works to to consider that I appreciate that’s outside of this planning yeah sorry just to supplement that answer thank you Katie um as K said those final details will be picked up as part of that 278 process but there is also um condition 16 um on the officer report is the secures the specification specifically for the cycle way along the Link Road um so there’s a sort of two process there that we can control exactly what form that Crossing takes there one to say for um no nothing more for me I think we’ve I go to councelor Andrews thank you chairman I’ve listened to all this with the greatest interest I must say I would have um I still have reservations I feel that this is still a missed opportunity to build a proper transport Hub I I didn’t mention the canal Basin for the simple reason I think the finances to do anything about the canal Basin are virtually non-existent that’s a pie in the sky idea completely I would desperately like to see that the um Frontage of the stat had improved as as we all saw it really is an absolute disgrace at the moment so but again I would not describe this as a transport Hub I think it’s more a mini transport hubblet that we’re being offered so I leave it to you how you vote thank you now we have a propos proposal in front of us can I ask for those in favor please show those against abstentions two two extensions so that is carried right thank you do we have an adjournment 10 minutes and then if um e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e chairman that we are live streaming once again okay welcome back to the meeting of the planning committee of her Council we now move on to I third application uh land at bton house bton Kingsland this is an unusual in as much as this is not a new application this is the Deferred application which some of us remember from three years ago which was I believe the committee was minded to approve but um the three concerns which were then uh have now been dealt with and we come back to the committee so um I’ll ask the officer Mr Banks to oh redo the presentation I yes are many things but too young isn’t one of them but thank you nonetheless uh thank you chairman um so um as the chairman said this is a an application that has come back before you following a deferral um the application was deferred um or it was recommended for refusal on two grounds by the case officer dealing with it at that time uh one related to uh a lack of justification um as far as um demonstrating that the applicant was in housing need and the second was to do with matters around HRA and you’ll see from the report I’ve done uh almost like an in an update report and then the original report is appended and you’ll see the two reasons for refusal outlined at the beginning of the report so on the 1st of September 2021 uh committee were minded to take a different decision to the recommendation uh that the officers made at that time uh and the application was deferred for consideration of the two points that I’ve just mentioned so three years on we’re now in a position where we’ve come back to you um the applicant has been able to demonstrate that they’re in house housing need to the satisfaction uh of our housing colleagues um they’ve also been able to demonstrate that they can satisfy matters around HRA and you’ll see from the report that uh the solution to that is to replace an aging septic tank that serves bton house uh with uh a replacement that will serve both bton house and the new dwelling um and you’ll see from the calculations that are provided in the report that actually that represents a betterment in terms of phos phosphate outputs and consequently on that basis that second reason for refusal is addressed the first reason for refusal as I say is also addressed by virtue of the fact that the um applicant and their agent had a conversation with our strategic housing manager soon after the defer of the application uh and you’ll see from the comments in the report that uh our housing colleagues as have said uh are now satisfied that that matter is also addressed and on the basis of that the applications recommended now for approval with uh a number of conditions one of those um requires the completion of a section 106 agreement to secure um the housing um for a local person in perpetuity for as low cost open markets um there are also conditions there relating to the replacement of the existing septic tank with um a brand new one as we’ve said um that will demonstrate that phosphorus outputs are reduced um as I say on that basis the application recommended for approval I’ll just run you through the slides very quickly these are the slides that um for those of you that were here three and a bit years ago you might remember them if not um here we go so the application sites identified by the red star um Bon’s a small Hamlet um at AC Crossroads um and you’ll see that um y Poole um the main village sort of in any proximity Is to the north of the application site uh so there’s the application site triangle triangular parcel of land um outlined in red bton house immediately to the uh Southeast um and you can see the crossroads there that I’ve just referred to and the small Hamlet um where you’ve got a small number of for the dwellings thank you K next one so this is the layout plan um that’s all fairly self-explanatory um as I said the um existing septic tank which you can see um well you can’t see it but you can see the replacement um uh proposal um in the sort uh Western corner of that triangular of land next slide there were any issues as far as offices were concerned originally over the design of the house um but here we go uh fairly cottage style dwelling relatively modest proportions uh with Dorma Dorma Windows front and back uh as I’ve said uh the officer at that time was very satisfied that there weren’t any issues with the design or in terms of immunity uh in in its relationship with bton house next slide that’s the out building again fairly self-explanatory uh some photographs of the site um usefully the uh arrows identify the directions from which they were taken um again pretty self-explanatory really um and and not much really more to say on that that’s the end of the presentation as I said the application is now recommended for approval we’re content that the matters that were previously of concern have been addressed so on that basis over to you chairman thank you thank you um we have no public speakers registered but but because this is the they would have spoken at the previous we have a um um a applicant provided a written statement which will Mr Mr Evans will read to the meeting thank you chairman a statement to be read on behalf of Mr a godding the applicant thank you for permitting me to draft a statement in support of my planning application on land at bton house bton the committee report explains the background to the application which is for a lowcost dwelling for me to live in with my family we have long-standing connections with the parish I was born and bred and have worked in the parish all my life and continue to do so since the application was first reported to Committee in 2021 we have managed to address the phosphate issue by proposing an upgrade to the septic system serving bton house and the housing officer is happy to support the application as a lowcost dwelling officers have confirmed that with these with those two issues addressed there is no impediment to granting planning permission I have no issue with completing the legal agreement required to ensure that the house remains affordable if ever sold however I fully anticipate it will pass to the next generation of goding to continue our long-standing ties to the local community should the committee vote in favor of granting permission today thank you thank you for your time in this matter Alan goding thank you now we’ll move on to the ward member coun hkam who’s the local Ward member uh he speaks and has the right to speak at the end of the meeting he you have 10 minutes naturally I’m going to take all 10 minutes of your time I’m really not this is a really simple application if it was a new application it the chances are it wouldn’t be before you um but because it was recommended for a refusal previously and obviously has to return for consideration the parish council are in support of it I’ve had numerous residents contact in support of Mr godings application too and my predecessor was in support of it and so am I I think that’s really all that needs to be said the details are before you so thank you okay can I umit councilor Baker thank you Mr chairman um just a couple of points really I was surprised to see it was listed as ra3 was quite a substantial Hamlet there at pigon but anyway that’s been covered because it is an affordable dwelling and I was pleased to see that uh that the existing septic systems going to be replaced I assume by a package treatment plant would that be right uh yeah that’s correct they’re a bit more efficient aren’t they yeah yeah good so with that in mind I I’m happy to support the officer recommendation for approval yeah second [Laughter] then we’ll move to a vote um it’s proposed can I have those in favor of the recommendation okay that’s unanimous right we’ll now move on to FR FR sit there hi Kae oh thank you Geor she wants us to thank you chair have a safe journey she’s going to a meeting this afternoon that’s why she didn’t come down she didn’t think she’d get back in time right we now move on to um item agenda eight licensing of sex establishments statement of Licensing policy the report before you concerns the policy for licensing of sex establishments please can I remind members to be careful in the language you use and choose in your words very carefully Mr sprigs will introduce the report thank you chair as you say this is to do with the license in the sex stablishment the statement of licens in policy the purpose is to adopt the license in sex establishment statement of licens policy the recommendation to you is the policies as presented be adopted which is shown as appendix one there were alternative options firstly you could propose modification to that policy you could reject or decide not to adopt the policy or you could refer the policy back to myself for further work consultation the above three options have been considered and have been rejected as the policy is fit for purpose has been consulted on and amended to reflect comments made where applicable the placing and crime act 2009 amended the local government Lous Provisions act 1982 section 2 and schedule 3 to introduce a new classif ification of sex establishments namely sexual entertainment venues this includes lap dancing pole dancing and other relevant entertainment the legislation provides for local authorities to adopt a policy and standard conditions relating to sexual entertainment venues sex shops and sex Cinemas on the 6th of March 2015 hery council is a full Council res resolved to adopt schedule three of the local government laneous revisions act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the police in and crime act 2009 commencing on the 16th of April 2015 this applied to the whole of the area of Hera at a time a policy was presented and approved which Still Remains in place the policy was well overdue for review and some small changes have been made further matters have been included in the policy relation to Modern slavery and human trafficking the community impact the council’s licensing regime aims to ensure that if sex establishments are granted a license to operate in Heritage that they operate in a safe fair and discreet Manner and are sensitive to the local area in which they are situated attention has been taken regarding advertising St of welfare external appearance locality and the number of licensed premises this policy further enhances the local Authority’s ability to carry out suitability tests and ensure that all license holders are informed about their safeguarding responsibilities in addition it offers the opportunities to share information regarding issues surrounding child sex exploitation and modern slavery whilst this is a decision on a back office function will have minimal environmental impact consideration has been given to minimize waste and resources in line with the council’s Environmental Policy you’ll be aware of the uh requirement or under the section 149 of the equalities act 2010 the the resource implication is this cost neutral to the council as a result the fees are set to cover the cost of issuing and ensuring compliance with the condition attached the legal implications the council’s license and sex poliy statement of license is an important factor when determining certain applications under this legislation if the policy is silent on the matter then the council will have less opportunity to guide and control applications ensuring that policy is up to date and covers areas that assist the counsel in ensuring and consistence of approach The sexan Establishment policy has been drafted to reflect current legislative requirements the risk management the pros policy ensure that sexual St are granted with iner fure that operate in a safe fair and discrete Manner and sensitive to the local area in which they situated it also ensures the rights of workers in this type of Industry are protected the policy will reduce the risk of the authority by providing guidance to in relation to decision making concerning any application and the risk is further reduced as any decision made can be challenged by rate of appeal through the magistrates Court in respect the consultation there has been a large consultation which the policy was sent to Representatives local businesses represented the local licensing trade which is alcohol and entertainment local residents through parish and town councils War members West Mercy police Herer Council Environmental Protection heres safeguarding children’s partnership Heritage council’s planning and Heritage public health and Heritage Community safety partnership this was done by email with it being sent to over 339 different emails addresses in addition the consultation was published on the council’s website which took place between the 23rd of February and the 24th of March there were 15 responses with comments and three no comments those comments are summarized in appendix 2 and the outcome of that con consideration that is the report chair thank you Mr spr councilor Andrews thank you I suppose I think Goin as part of the licensing committee I have read this report I think it’s extremely comprehensive and covers all all the likely likely things we can think of today at any rate so I’m happy to move the recommendation seconded yes or four second three or four seconded now did you want to speak Council thank you Mr chairman as a point of interest um I understand that um pole dancing is is considered possible for the future Olympics along with yeah I’ve read a piece about it recently it’s on the similar lines to rhythmic gymnastics Etc and it’s quite a skillful skillful occupation by all accounts but but that doesn’t fall under sex establishments as far as I know but I’m sure it will get a wide audience if it’s at the olymp thank you chair um thank you Mr sprigs for um your presentation and the report um it was very helpful very detailed I’m very pleased to see the changes that were made following consultation with various groups uh in particular women’s equality group and um West meria rape and sexual abuse support um Center I know we’re we’re making light of some of the things like pole dancing um I am really um we have very limited things we can do when we have parliamentary support and legality for these um establishments um I think a lot of the issues have been captured and raised by Mr Spriggs um adequately I think particularly with regard to policy 7.32 and the discretion new grounds which give the council real control over how we license these establishments so I’m very grateful for that it’s very important however whatever moral grounds people feel about this that we do have the policy with the correct detail and wording in place so um I’m pleased to see with regard to staff welfare um particularly the um addition of the documents and uh giving people understanding of their rights and access so that’s really helpful could I just regard section 8.4 with enforcement um we talking there about a risk-based approach U which we do with all licensing is there any um do we have to wait for complaints to be made in terms of the risk-based what what are the criteria for your risk-based um enforcement thank you chair the risk-based enforcement quite often is intelligence LED so it may well be that we get a complaint from a member of the public or possibly somebody who works within those premises and we would then look at those issues thank you Mr spr so can I just confirm that within the pack there is um contact details for licensing team and and that that that they can get report uh perhaps anonymously if required yes absolutely I mean as you know you can contact licensing quite easily and we deal with Anonymous reports all of the time so but obviously we have to balance thanks Mr SP that’s very helpful any other speakers then that has been proposed and seconded um those in favor please show that was unanimous can I one