[A]     The erection of 81 no. dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

[B]     Variation of condition 10 of planning permission DCCE2006/0099/O to allow the construction of 81 affordable and open market residential units.

[A]     The erection of 81 no. dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

[B]     Variation of condition 10 of planning permission DCCE2006/0099/O to allow the construction of 81 affordable and open market residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§         Amended plans had been received.  The main changes were highlighted.

§         Letters had been received in response to the amended plans from 4, 21, 23 and 25 Loder Drive.  The comments were summarised.

§         Comments had been received from the Traffic Manager in response to the amended plans and he had confirmed that the principal concerns had been addressed but minor revisions to the internal road layout were required.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that:

§         The amended plans addressed the principal concerns expressed by officers and consultees.  Minor revisions were still required to some of the house types, boundary treatments, garden areas and road layouts but, overall, the amended scheme was considered acceptable.

§         The recommendation had been altered in that:

a.      The requirement to demolish number 62 Venns Lane could be dealt with by condition rather than included within the Section 106 Agreemeent.

b.      The additional highway contribution was to be ring fenced for improvement to the Venns Lane/College Road/Old School Lane junction.

c.      The consultation period had not yet expired on the amended plans, therefore the recommendation remained that of delegated authority to determine the application subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period and any layout and design changes considered necessary by officers being accommodated.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Rayner spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Lawson spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, commented on the level of public interest in this application and reported that a number of meetings had been held involving the developer and local residents.  Councillor Wilcox noted that a Traffic Assessment had been undertaken in January 2006 as part of the outline stage and it did not take into account the development of 300 houses at Holmer and other extant planning permissions and recent development proposals.  The Area Engineer Development Control (Central) clarified the Traffic Assessment considerations.  In response to a question about outstanding highway layout and parking provision issues, the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the updated comments of the Traffic Manager. 

Councillor Wilcox emphasised his support for the Royal National College for the Blind and the importance of the College to the city and the county, particularly given its potential involvement with 2012 Paralympic Games.  It was noted that the Sub-Committee had, contrary to officer recommendation, approved the outline application for the development of 70 residential units in order to support the redevelopment of College facilities; this included a reduction in the affordable housing requirement from 35% to 17.5%.  It was also noted this application would increase the number of residential units to 81, representing a 16% increase on the approved proposal.  Councillor Wilcox questioned the need for this increase and noted the comment in the officer’s report that it was ‘…not considered that the financial benefits to the College from the uplift in the number of dwellings should be given significant weight in the determination of these applications’.

Councillor Wilcox commented that local residents were, in particular, concerned about the potential loss of residential amenity, especially given the potential impact on the ‘green buffer zone’ of grassland and trees between the existing dwellings and the new development.  He drew attention to area adjacent to numbers 2 and 3 Helensdale Close and noted that the original indicative layout showed a five bedroom dwelling in this position but the new proposal would result in a terrace of four units.  He felt that this would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity and privacy for the occupants of the Helensdale Close properties.  He also drew attention to Plot 16 and felt that this unit would create a pinch point in the buffer zone and would have harmful impact on residents of Loder Drive.  He noted that the proposed slab levels of the new dwellings had been reduced but felt that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.  Whilst he felt unable to support this application, he felt that there was merit in further negotiations in order to reduce the number of proposed dwellings in order to maintain the character of the area and protect the amenities and privacy of the occupants of adjacent properties.

In response to a number of issues raised, the Principal Planning Officer commented as follows:

·             A judgement on the principle of developing this site had been made when the Sub-Committee approved the outline planning application.

·             The Traffic Assessment had been undertaken on the basis of 80 dwellings and was deemed acceptable.

·             The financial benefits of the application for the Royal National College for the Blind should not sway the determination of this application; nevertheless the applicant’s agent had advised that the additional money was critical to the planning strategy for the remainder of development at the College.

·             The ‘developed area’ of the site as proposed accorded with the principles of the Master Plan and the green buffer zone had not been reduced in area to accommodate the additional 11 dwellings.

·             The impact on the amenity of residents within Helendsdale Close and Loder Drive was not considered so harmful as to warrant refusal of the application and, furthermore, in some case the distances between the existing and proposed buildings had increased and the slab levels lowered.

·             The Conservation Manager – Ecology was supportive of the orchard management plan and proposals.

·             It was noted that Section 106 contributions were to be proportionately increased in line with that agreed at the outline stage.

The Sub-Committee debated the merits the application, some of the principal points included:

i.            Councillor RI Matthews commented that, at the outline stage, Members emphasised the need for every effort to be made to address the concerns of local residents and mitigate the impact of the development.  He supported the objectives of the College but felt that this could not be at any cost.  He believed that a satisfactory solution could be found if the number of dwellings and over-intensive nature of the proposed development was reduced.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the provision of CCTV had not been included as part of the recommendation.

ii.           Councillor SJ Robertson, an adjacent Ward Member, commented on traffic congestion issues in the locality and sympathised with the concerns of local residents, particularly given the potential loss of outlook.

iii.         In response to a number of questions from Councillor AM Toon about the type and mix of affordable housing units, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the provision of two bedroom flats had been agreed by the Sub-Committee previously and, as they would be for persons on the Homepoint waiting list with sight loss, partial sight loss or a disability, the units would be constructed to a bespoke design and would be some 40% larger than standard flats.

iv.         Councillor PJ Edwards welcomed the recommended condition to prevent the conversion of garages into habitable accommodation but asked for further clarification about the Traffic Assessment.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Traffic Assessment had not taken the proposed development at Holmer into account, as this did not form part of the Unitary Development Plan at the outline stage.  However, the development at Holmer did take into account the impact of dwellings at this site.  He added that any future applications would need to take the developments at this site and at Holmer into consideration.

v.          In response to questions from Councillor WJ Walling, the Principal Planning Officer advised that measures to mitigate the impact of plot 16 included the lowering of slab levels and the retention of an existing leylandii to act as a natural screen and the impact of plot 21 would be lessened through a reduction in the size of the garden area.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the building-to-building relationships and degree of overlooking was considered acceptable having regard to the layout, distances, retained trees and conditions proposed and in view of recent Planning Inspector decisions.  In response to a question about the potential to delete a building or buildings from the scheme, the Central Team Leader advised that the Sub-Committee could consider this but it was the view of officers that the proposals were satisfactory subject to the recommended conditions and agreements.

vi.         Councillor GFM Dawe noted the Council’s policies and commitments in respect of carbon management and sustainability and felt that this site would be suitable as a car free development.  The Development Control Manager commented on how sustainability issues were informing the Unitary Development Plan and how officers were seeking to improve the carbon footprint of new developments.  However, the needs of potential occupants also had to be considered and, given that this site was on the edge of the city, it was considered that the parking provision of 1.8 spaces per dwelling was acceptable in this instance.

vii.       Councillor AT Oliver drew attention to Condition 10 of Part 2 of the outline planning permission which stated that the reason for a total of 70 units was ‘To define the terms of this permission and to maintain the landscape and ecological character of the site and surroundings’.  He felt that this should be maintained and the current application refused.

viii.      Councillors PA Andrews acknowledged the potential impact on local residents but felt that, having regard to the outline planning permission, the layout and the recommended conditions, the application was acceptable.  Councillor MAF Hubbard supported these views and commented that the traffic issues in the area were not directly linked to this site.  He also commented on the importance of the College and its future involvement with the Paralympic Games and other sporting events.

ix.         Councillor DW Greenow felt that the development of this site had reached an acceptable limit and that any further units would represent an over-intensive development of the site.

Councillor Wilcox questioned why the Traffic Assessment had been undertaken on the basis of 80 units when the outline planning application only sought 70 units, he felt that the necessary contributions towards highway infrastructure improvements had been underestimated and felt that further work was required in respect of the pinch points at plots 16 and 21.  Without layout improvements, he felt unable to support the application and proposed that it be refused.

A motion to approve the application, as per the recommendation, was lost and the resolution below was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

The proposal, which would result in an increase in the number of dwellings to 81  from the approved 70 dwellings would represent an over-intensive form of development that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the locality and would also be detrimental to the residential amenity of existing properties in Helensdale Close and Loder Drive. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies S1, DR1, DR2 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.  Councillor Wilcox asked that a note be added to highlight the areas where there could be opportunities for further negotiations to address the concerns of the Sub-Committee.]