Demolition of existing cottage and erection of 3 two bedroom houses and 2 three bedroom houses with parking facilities.

Demolition of existing cottage and erection of 3 two bedroom houses and 2 three bedroom houses with parking facilities.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

§         A letter of objection had been received from the occupier of 23 Springfield Close and the contents were summarised.

§         Attention was drawn to a typographical error in Paragraph 6.5 of the report.

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

The Senior Planning Officer explained the policy considerations in relation to density, particularly with regard to developments in designated settlement boundaries.

Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, noted that the Parish Council and local residents were very concerned about the potential loss of the existing cottage and, whilst recognising the need for appropriate development, felt that the proposal represented an over intensive form of development.  He said that he understood the applicant to be willing to examine other options and felt that this should be explored further.  He also commented on the concerns about the access arrangements and related highway safety considerations.

The Central Team Leader commented that, given the siting of the existing dwelling, development of the site could be difficult if the cottage was retained, as it may not result in the optimum use of available land and may not result in a satisfactory relationship between buildings.

Councillor R.I. Matthews supported the Local Ward Member’s views and felt that the rural appearance of the village should be protected and the cottage retained.

Councillor P.J. Edwards commented that impact on local character and the design of the development were material planning considerations.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and supported the views of the Parish Council.

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 redevelopment of the site in the manner proposed would necessitate the demolition of the existing cottage, which is considered to be a locally important building in terms of its vernacular architecture and contribution to the streetscene.  Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policy HBA8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

2. The redevelopment as proposed, by reason of its design and layout would represent an uncharacteristic overdevelopment of the site that would be detrimental to the distinctive semi-rural character of the site and the surrounding locality.  Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policies DR1, H13 and H14 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, 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.]