Erection of 3 houses & formation of parking area.

Erection of 3 houses & formation of parking area.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

§         Correspondence had been received from Hereford City Council; recommended refusal on the basis of over intensive development with inadequate access.

§         A further section plan had been received identifying the precise position and height of the new development relative to the nearest neighbouring property and lounge window.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held.  He felt that, despite the revisions made since the last application (CE2006/1460/F refers), this proposal represented an over intensive form of development and would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.  He commented on difficulties associated with parking in the vicinity of the site and felt that traffic generated by this development could compromise highway safety further.

Councillors Mrs. W.U. Attfield and R. Preece, the other Local Ward Members, also felt the proposal to be over intensive and commented on parking problems

Some Members felt that the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome.  Others felt that this form of backland development was acceptable having regard to National Planning Guidance.

The Development Control Manager commented that the principal issue for consideration was the impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.  It was felt that, given the views of the Traffic Manager and the proposed conditions relating to access and parking, a refusal reason based on highway safety might not be defendable. 

In response to a comment about potential loss of light, the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the orientation and distances between the properties but acknowledged that there were more general amenity issues to be considered.  The Central Team Leader confirmed that the proposal satisfied requirements in respect of loss of light.

Councillor Chappell maintained that the proposal should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact on the amenities of surrounding properties.

RESOLVED:

That   (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason 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 proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the amenities of the locality.  As such the development is contrary to Policies S1, S2, DR1, DR2 and H13 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.]