[A] Demolition of rear two storey extensions and construction of new extension to provide living accommodation for 38 key workers and extension to public house.

[B] Demolition of rear two storey extensions forming ancillary accommodation to the existing public house premises.

[A] Demolition of rear two storey extensions and construction of new extension to provide living accommodation for 38 key workers and extension to public house.

[B] Demolition of rear two storey extensions forming ancillary accommodation to the existing public house premises.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that an updated acoustic report had been received and that Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager was satisfied with the proposal subject to a scheme of noise insulation works.

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as Local Ward Member, noted that this was an intensive development proposal of a type which was not currently found in Hereford.  He felt that the site was suitable for some form of development but he expressed concerns about the access arrangements, particularly the lack of a rear access.  He also felt that the car free nature of the development should be emphasised with the addition of an informative note alerting potential occupiers that they would not be entitled to residents’ parking permits if a scheme for the area was introduced.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a rear access would involve third party land and, therefore, this possibility had not been pursued further.  He commented that a key aspect of the development was that it should be car free because of its sustainable location and it was considered that occupiers were less likely to require the use of a car compared to a standard residential development.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews felt that a rear access was needed, especially as occupation by student nurses was anticipated and they would expect pedestrian access to the County Hospital.  The Chairman added that the lack of a rear access could potentially hinder the emergency services should an incident occur at the development.  The Principal Planning suggested that officers be delegated to investigate this matter with the applicant in consultation with the Chairman.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposal was not a joint venture with the Hospital but it was understood that the applicant had undertaken market research which demonstrated the demand for such accommodation.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell noted that many of the professions listed under recommended condition 14 would be required to have access to a vehicle as part of their jobs and there would be no viable alternative to park their cars elsewhere given the cost and safety considerations.  Therefore, he felt that this element needed to be looked at again.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas noted the apparent demand but commented that married key workers might also need affordable accommodation and he questioned the mix proposed.  He felt that the proposal was very intensive and noted the need for insulation to mitigate disturbance from adjacent uses.

A suggestion was made that the list of potential occupiers should include students given the plans for the Learning Village.  Other Members had mixed views about this suggestion.

A number of Members felt that the lack of rear access and parking were significant concerns.

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes commented that congestion and safety problems might result from a single entrance.  It was noted that Hereford City Council had also expressed concerns about the lack of a rear emergency route.  Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes felt that further details were required about who would be responsible for the communal areas and deal with any on site problems.

In response to comments and questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§             Officers would look into the fact that the application referred to 57-59 Commercial Road but the Ordnance Survey map appended to the report showed a different address.

§             Deliveries to the Hop Pole Public House were made via Commercial Road because the access arch to the rear was not large enough to accommodate delivery lorries.

§             Four parking places would be provided for employees and deliveries associated with the Public House but the residential scheme was to be car free.  It was noted that the Traffic Manager had no objections subject to conditions.

§             A rear pedestrian / emergency access could be discussed with the applicant but it would involve third party negotiations.

§             Conditions 14 and 15 sought to restrict occupation to the identified key workers, highlighting that this was not standard residential accommodation but the restrictions could be reconsidered.

Councillor Mrs. W.U.A. Attfield felt that the type of accommodation proposed was not suitable for the identified purpose and concurred with the Strategic Housing Manager’s comment that ‘shared accommodation is outdated’.  Councillor Mrs. Andrews commented that there was unlikely to be demand from student nurses for bed-sit accommodation and that self-contained units would be more acceptable.  Councillor Chappell felt that there could be security issues with the type of accommodation proposed.  The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to recommended condition 15 which would require further details about management issues.

Councillor R.I. Matthews felt that there were a number of fundamental concerns with the application, particularly relating to access arrangements, the intensive nature of the development and the design, which warranted refusal of the application.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the applications subject to the following reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Development Control Manager) provided that the Development Control Manager does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

DCCE2006/1158/F

1.It has not been demonstrated that the type of accommodation proposed is required as 'affordable' housing to meet the proven local need and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy H8 of the Hereford Local Plan and H9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and advice contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled the Provision of Affordable Housing.

2.The development has inadequate parking and no rear access for general or emergency use.  As such the development is contrary to Policies ENV17 and T11 of the Hereford Local plan and Policies H3, H14, S2, DR1, DR3, T6 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

DCCE2006/1159/C

1.In the absence of a formal approval for the re-development of the site within the Conservation Area, the proposed demolition is considered unacceptable and contrary to Policies CON12, CON16 of the Hereford Local Plan and HBA7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

(ii)    If the Development Control Manager 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 he would not refer the application to the Planning Committee.]