For:      Taylor Woodrow per Drivers Jonas, Cornwall Court, 19 Cornwall Street, Birmingham, B3 2DY

 

Ward: Kington Town

The Principal Planning Officer said that no further objections raising material planning considerations had been received at the end of the consultation period.  She presented the following updates:

 

The Councils Conservation Manager made the following further comments on the amended plans:

 

Following discussions with the developer, the form of the block of flats has been changed completely. It now consists of elements of appropriate scale, details and materials. I recommend acceptance of this approach subject to conditions requiring approval of large scale details of openings, windows, doors and doorcases, eaves, verges and rainwater goods. In addition approval of a sample panel of the stone walling should be the subject of a condition.

 

The extent of the stone boundary walling to the lane on the conservation area boundary and the changes in the south elevation of the development to show a more interesting roof outline and the use of slate are also significant improvements over the original submission, and, on balance, I consider the scheme to be of an acceptable standard in terms of its impact on the adjacent conservation area

 

Additional Representations

 

Mr Kenneth Lewis, 9 Greenfield Drive made the additional extra comments:

 

There are a number of points I wish to make which I will try to keep brief and itemise.

1. Why did all the officers concerned not recognise or initially determine the objections to the development from members of the locals or community leaders?.

2 Why did the officers not consider the local views as those that, as employees of the Local Authority, they should promulgate and defend?.

3.Why did the Planning Department not carry out its own investigation into traffic matters?

4. Why did the Planning Department accept the Traffic Statement  made by Peter Evans Partnership ( Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering Consultants) which was submitted by the applicant and therefore likely to be biased in his favour, as any one with any knowledge of traffic problems would see as clearly as daylight that this development will cause serious dangers and disruption? 

5. Why was the statement that the effect of extra traffic flow would effect the quality of life due to extra noise (this statement was made by your own environmental officer) for people living locally ignored?

6.In the letter  from Drivers Jonas dated 9th July 2007, they state that they contacted the Crime Risk Manager at Hereford Police Station and he has stated that "The long term effect of allowing the development to have general permeability is likely to cause residents an increase in crime and disorder and the fear of crime." Will this be put to the meeting on Wednesday the 25th July inst? If not why not and could I not be allowed to comment on this matter?

7. Has the planning Department contacted Taylor Woodrow's Public Relations Department to ask them to reconsider the whole sorry mess, purchase the land on the old Eardisley Road and take some of the Maesydari development to this site to ease the problems and concerns of the residents.?

8 Has any investigation by the Local Authority taken place as to why the trees were felled before the result of decisions?

 

9. Should this application be successful, will the Planning Department consider suggesting that the rates of local households should be reduced?

I object to the latest application for car parking for 108 vehicles.

 

A further letter was received from Mr G Burton who makes the following comments:

 

Thank you for informing me of the new amended plans.  Our opinion,  as the owners of the adjacent site to the south,  is that the new design for the apartment block is a significant improvement upon the two previous designs.  However,  I wish to make the following points:

 

1.   There remains an appalling lack of outdoor amenity area available to the residents of 'the block'.

2.   The annex to the Design and Access Statement refers to the introduction of a hipped roof but this is not what the revised plans show.  Please confirm which is correct.

3.   The annex refers to window 'detailing',  but these details are not described.  What are they?

4.   The external brick needs to be chosen with great care and approved by the Conservation Officer.  What happened to the stonework walls shown on the approved plans.

5.   The site plan refers to 'new stone boundary wall'.  This is a very important feature of the design and should be, in my view, fully specified at this stage and approved by the Conservation Officer.

 

 

The applicants agent have noted a minor error on the annotations of the apartment block. This should have been Welland rather than Chilver / Kelsey. A new plan amending this type error has been submitted.

 

Officers Response:

 

The majority of the issues raised in the letter from Mr Lewis relate to the processing of previous applications and are not material to the consideration of this application. Members are reminded that there is an extant permission for 58 dwellings on this site and this application represents relatively minor amendments to the scheme which are considered to improve the appearance, layout, private amenity space and car parking provision. Other issues raised can be dealt with through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

 

Councillor TM James the Local Ward Member was of the view that the latest proposals were of considerable improvement over the original scheme.  He was considerably concerned however that the Crime Risk Manager of Police had indicated that there may be a danger of an increased risk of crime along the proposed pedestrian links from the southern part of the site into the town.  He therefore felt that a decision on the application should be deferred for clarification on this important aspect.  The Principal Planning Officer said that further discussions had been held about the proposals with a view to reaching agreement with the Crime Risk Manager. The Area Engineer (Development Control) said that if the routes were more open, lit and adopted they would be acceptable.  Notwithstanding this Councillor James felt that the issue should be resolved before a decision was made.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the matter could be resolved by the appropriate conditions and the Sub-Committee agreed with this proposal subject to the Chairman and Local Ward Member being consulted.

 

RESOLVED

 

that Subject to conditions considered necessary by the officers in respect of the footpath links from the site, in consultation with the Chairman and Local Ward Member:

 

the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report and any additional or amended matters which he considers to be necessary and appropriate, and

 

Upon completion of the above-mentioned planning obligation agreement and negotiations, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

 

1 -     A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

       

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2 -     B01 (Samples of external materials )

 

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

 

3 -     E16 (Removal of permitted development rights )

 

         Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

 

4 -     G04 (Landscaping scheme (general) )

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

5 -     G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general) )

 

         Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

6 -     G08 (Retention of trees/hedgerows (outline applications) )

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

 

7 -     No development shall take place until an ecological survey, the scope of which shall first be approved in writing by the local planning authority and which shall include a mitigation strategy, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation strategy.

 

         Reason:  To protect the ecological interest on the site.

 

8 -     No development shall take place until details of off-site highway works associated with the development hereby permitted, including widening of Prospect Lane and Greenfield Drive footpath connections and installation of improved lighting and re-surfacing works to Prospect Lane and Greenfield Drive have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

 

         Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

 

9 -     No development shall take place until the details of the highway drains and roads associated with the development hereby permitted, including the works necessary to provide access from the public highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

 

         Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

 

10 -      H29 (Secure cycle parking provision )

 

         Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy.

 

11 -      H27 (Parking for site operatives )

 

         Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety.

 

12 -      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction )

 

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

           INFORMATIVES:

 

1 -     N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

 

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt