Proposed development of 13 no. new residential units 7 no. 3-4 bed houses, 3 no. 2 bed flats, 2 no. 2 bed houses and 1no. bed units with demolition works to remove existing garage and MOT Centre.

Proposed development of 13 no. new residential units 7 no. 3-4 bed houses, 3 no. 2 bed flats, 2 no. 2 bed houses and 1no.bed units with demolition works to remove existing garage and MOT Centre.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following comments received from the Conservation Manager:

• Roof form – the design & access statement goes to some lengths to argue that an array of symmetrical gables will not ‘work’ in the streetscape, but sidesteps my fundamental point that virtually all terraced houses have eaves and ridges parallel to the street. If monopitch roofs are to be used for purely aesthetic reasons, as here, the design must acknowledge that they set up a very strong rhythm which does not accommodate deviation: the reversed handing of units 12 & 13 is a case in point. Indeed there is no objective reason why these units need to be planned any differently to units 7-11, as reinstating a continuous street frontage is one of the key urban design objectives for the site.
• Active frontage – the dominance of deep voids (car ports, bin stores etc) at street level hardly constitutes an ‘active’ frontage, and the decision to provide two parking spaces per unit in units 7-13 rather than the minimum is a major contributor to this. Whilst accepting that the set back has been minimised and is necessary for visibility purposes, any token planting in this strip will not be viable and realistically it should be treated as an extension of the pavement. Similarly the lawns in front of units 12 & 13 are too exposed to be usable as amenity space and it might be better to offer this space at the rear.
• Parking provision – the public impact of providing two spaces per unit in 7-13 has been described above but it should also be noted that it impinges directly on the amenity of the gardens in units 7-11. The provision of first floor terraces is not necessarily compensation as they are responses to the projecting garages rather than features incorporated from first principles.
• Colour palette – the occurrence of boldly coloured elevations in Kyrle Street is a recent, atypical phenomenon and I welcome the confinement of colour accents to the timber oriels.

 

Conclusion/Recommendation:

 

Whilst I have no objection to the principle of a residential development on this site, I cannot support this scheme in its present form for the reasons given above; in particular I consider the relationship of units 12 & 13 to the rest of the scheme to be incongruous.”

 

In response to this comment the applicant has submitted amended plans which the Conservation Manager comments:

 

“The agents have grasped my point about the rhythm of the street elevations by reversing the handing of units 12 & 13 but have not addressed my other concerns.  The position of units 12 & 13 set back relative to units 7-11 still does not achieve the objective of re-instating a continuous frontage and the re-positioning of units 7-11 further back from the pavement line is, quite literally, a retrograde step.  There is nothing gained from providing even more unusable ‘landscaping’ in this exposed location and certainly not at the expense of the private gardens to the rear.  The omission of the bin store recesses reduces the proportion of rather intimidating voids at ground level but it might be better if the ‘car ports’ were simply treated as garages ie with external doors to the street.”

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the comments of the Conservation Manager, which focused on Units 12 and 13, but felt that it was not considered that these concerns would justify a refusal of planning permission. Notwithstanding the detailed comments made in relation to the siting of Units 12 and 13 relative to the remainder of the development, the proposal represented a significant enhancement to the Conservation Area and accorded with policies seeking to promote effective re-use of previously developed sites in sustainable locations.

 

He added that the Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement should have included a further clause requiring the 2% levy for monitoring and enforcement of the Agreement in line with the adopted SPD

 

Councillor CM Bartrum, the Local Ward Member, welcomed the application to improve an area of Kyrle Street but he had reservations in respect of the proposed design of the dwellings, especially the use of mono pitched roofs in the application.

 

Councillor RH Smith noted that a preliminary contaminated land survey had been undertaken and felt that a contaminated land condition should have been included in the Officer’s recommendation. He also voiced his concerns that the Local Ward Member had not been consulted during the Section 106 process. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the condition regarding the clearance of contamination would be included.

 

Members discussed the application thoroughly and although they had concerns regarding the proposed design they felt that granting the application would improve the site.

 

In response to concerns regarding the mono pitch roof, the Southern Team Leader advised Members that a standard roof would be likely to increase the height of the development.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1          A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission))

 

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2          C01 (Samples of external materials)

 

Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

 

3          B07 (Section 106 Agreement)

 

a)         £17,270 towards enhancement of existing open space, play sport and recreation facilities

 

b)         £32,813 towards the enhancement of educational infrastructure at Ross Early Years; Ashfield Park Primary School; St Jospehs RC Promary School; John Kyrle High School and Ross Youth Service

 

Reason: In order to provide [enhanced sustainable transport infrastructure, educational facilities, improved play space, public art, waste recycling and affordable housing] in accordance with Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

4          L01 (Foul/surface water drainage)

 

Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and to comply with Policy CF2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5          L02 (No surface water to connect to public system)

 

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment so as to comply with Policy CF2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

6          L03 (No drainage run-off to public system)

 

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment so as to comply with Policy CF2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

7          E01 (Site investigation - archaeology)

 

Reason: To ensure the archaeological interest of the site is recorded and to comply with the requirements of Policy ARCH6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

8          E04 (Submission of foundation design)

 

Reason: The development affects a site on which archaeologically significant remains survive and a design solution is sought to minimise archaeological disturbance through a sympathetic foundation design in order to comply with the requirements of Policy ARCH2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

9          H02 (Single access – footway)

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

10        H03 – (Visibility splays)

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

11        H04 (Visibility over frontage)

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

12        H08 (Access closure)

 

Reason: To ensure the safe and free flow of traffic using the adjoining County highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

13        H09 (Driveway gradient)

                       

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

14        H13 (Access, turning area and parking)

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

15        H21 (Wheel washing)

 

Reason: To ensure that the wheels of vehicles are cleaned before leaving the site in the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

16        H22 (Opening windows adjacent to the highway)

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

17        H27 (Parking for site operatives)

 

Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

18        H29 (Covered and secure cycle parking provision)

 

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

19        I50 (Measures to deal with soil contamination)

 

Reason: To ensure potential soil contamination is satisfactorily dealt     with before the development is occupied and to comply with Policy DR10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

            INFORMATIVES

 

1          N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

 

2          N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

 

3          W01 - Welsh Water Connection to PSS

 

4          W02 - Welsh Water rights of access

 

5          HN01 – Mud on highway

 

6          HN04 – Private apparatus within highway

 

7          HN05 – Works within the highway

 

8          HN10 – No drainage to discharge to highway

 

9          HN22 – Works adjoining highway

 

10        HN24 – Drainage other than via highway system