Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

Ward - Burghill, Holmer and Lyde

Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A letter of objection had been received from Mr. A. Davies and Miss C. Lloyd.  The contents of the letter were summarised.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               ‘Levante’ has a window in its southern flank which overlooks 3 Belle Bank Avenue. Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the new dwelling will be closer to the boundary, it is not considered that the proposed development will result in a demonstrable degree of overlooking on the ground floor window.

§               It is not considered that the proposed development will give rise to a loss of light, as 3 Belle Bank Avenue lies south of the application site.

§               Any future development of 3 Belle Bank Avenue would be determined on its merits and the mere presence of the new dwelling would not in itself prohibit any extension, but it would be a material consideration.

§               Property values are not a material planning consideration.

§               Conditions are recommended to secure the retention of the existing landscaping.

§               Consideration of the relationship between the proposed development and all of the surrounding neighbours including the potential affect on existing levels of amenity and privacy has been addressed in the committee report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss. Lloyd and Mr. Pontin spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, expressed a number of concerns about the proposal, including:

·         Holmer Parish Council were unable to attend the meeting but had asked for attention to be drawn to their strong objections.

·         Belle Bank Avenue was of a unique design and a fine example of 1950s architecture and should be protected.

·         The proposal represented an over intensive form of development which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

·         The views of the speakers and others in the community should not be dismissed.

·         Too many gardens were being lost to infill development and comments made by a Shadow Cabinet Minister about the impact of ‘garden grabbing’ were outlined.

·         Councillor Robertson expressed surprise that the Traffic Manager had no objections given the problems with parking and congestion in the locality.

A number of Members expressed concerns about the application, including:

w        The need to preserve the heritage of the area and to maintain the environment and quality of life for local residents.

w        The potential impact of the development on the character of the area.

w        Problems with on street parking.

w        The position and scale of the proposed dwelling was considered cramped.

w        The potential for setting a precedent.

Given the potential impact of the development on neighbouring dwellings and on the character of the area, a motion to refuse the application was proposed.

In response to comments by Members, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: there would be sufficient separation distances between dwellings; it was not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or overbearing impact; account needed to be taken of the mixed architectural character of the established residential area; and the level of amenity space was considered reasonable. 

In response to a question, the Head of Planning and Transportation confirmed that local distinctiveness was a matter for Members to take a view on, alongside other material considerations.

A Member acknowledged the concerns of others but noted the various styles and positions of dwellings in the wider locality.  In response to a question about the potential to defend a refusal of planning permission on appeal, the Locum Lawyer noted that officers considered the proposal to be in compliance with the Unitary Development Plan and Members would need to have solid reasons to reject the application if they were so minded.  The Head of Planning and Transportation explained that national and local planning policies supported appropriate infill development, it was not considered that this proposal would have a significant impact on residential amenity, and a judgement on the impact on the character of the area needed to be made by the committee.  Some Members questioned the relevance of any future challenge to the discussion and determination of any particular application by the committee.

A number of Members supported the views expressed by the local ward member and local residents.

In response to questions by Members: the Senior Planning Officer clarified the dimensions of the proposed dwelling and the distances between buildings and boundaries; the Senior Planning Officer advised that conditions were recommended in respect of the retention of trees and hedgerows and a condition could be added to omit a window in the southern elevation; the Development Control Manager explained that each application had to be considered on its own merits and it was for potential occupants of the dwelling to decide whether the accommodation was of sufficient size; and the Head of Planning and Transportation emphasised that it was the duty of officers to provide professional and impartial advice to the Committee on each application in the context of the planning policies and all other material considerations.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution; she maintained objections to the application, particularly in view of the comments of the Parish Council and local residents, and re-iterated the concern that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character of the street scene.

Although the motion was contrary to the officer recommendation, in view of the debate and the reasons put forward by Members, the Head of Planning and Transportation and the Locum Lawyer did not consider that a Further Information Report was required in this instance.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.      The proposal by reason of its scale and form would result in a cramped and intrusive form of development which is out of keeping with the design and character which defines the immediate vicinity, contrary to Policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.