For:      Strand Homes Ltd, per Mr P H Tufnell, Tufnell Town & Country Planning, Waverley Studio, Gloucester Road, Hartpury, Gloucester, GL19 3BG

Ward: Hagley

Erection of a terrace of 3 cottages and provision of additional parking area.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that two additional parking spaces had been incorporated into the scheme and an additional condition was recommended in respect of foul drainage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of Bartestree Parish Council.

Councillor R.M. Wilson, the Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about a number of matters, including:

·             he was appalled at the storage of materials on the nearby burial ground and the breach in a listed wall and said that they should be restored to their previous condition as a matter of urgency;

·             he felt that the current scheme could be considered overdevelopment as it would result in a total of 66 dwellings on the site (the original applications - CE2000/1143/F and CE2000/1146/L - sought the construction of 17 mews cottages and 23 dwellings within the Convent buildings);

·             he felt that the proposal would detract from Bartestree Convent, particularly as it would restrict views towards the Listed Buildings;

·             referring to a number of policies in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) [the UDP], he felt that the density of development was too high, that additional housing in this location would not meet policy requirements and the site was outside the village envelope;

·             he commented that this area could be used to meet open space requirements;

·             he commented that the sewage system might not be able to accommodate three more dwellings; and

·             he noted that a number of planning obligations had been discharged following amendments to the scheme and suggested that the retention of this area could provide some local amenity benefits as a public open space.

Councillor Wilson felt that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would detract from the Listed Building and would represent and over-intensive form of development in this sensitive location.

In response to the concerns of Members, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: potential enforcement matters were being investigated and would be pursued appropriately; a sub area of the Bartestree Settlement Boundary now surrounded the Convent in the UDP; Planning Policy Guidance and the UDP sought densities above 30 dwellings per hectare; and a reason for refusal based on loss of open space might be difficult to sustain given the approved use of the land for parking spaces.

A number of Members concurred with the Local Ward Member that this further development would have a detrimental impact on the setting and surroundings of the Listed Buildings.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons 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:

1.      The proposed development would by reason of its siting and scale result in the loss of an additional element of open space and the cumulative effect of further development would add to the sense of enclosure of the site.  This would adversely impact upon the visual amenities of the locality and detract from the setting of Bartestree Convent, a Listed Building contrary to Policies S2, S7 and HBA4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and the guiding principles set out in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

(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, although the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services given the grounds for refusal put forward by the Sub-Committee.]