Residential development together with alterations to 10 Ledbury Road to provide 6 residential units.

Residential development together with alterations to 10 Ledbury Road to provide 6 residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             Hereford City Council recommended refusal on the basis that the amendments had not dealt with the concerns expressed previously.

§             One further letter in response to the amended plans had been received from 16 Ledbury Road, re-iterating previous comments in relation to access, on-street and site parking.  Also the occupants commented that the development would overlook their property, would result in increased noise from the use of the balconies, the construction may affect the stability of the neighbouring property and its basement and that the bungalows were the least offensive element of the scheme.

§             The Traffic Manager advised that the reduction in the number of units would be beneficial in terms of reducing vehicle movements to and from Ledbury Road and his recommendation of approval remained unchanged.

Councillor WJ Walling, a Local Ward Member, commented that he had reservations before the receipt of the amended plans but felt that the key issues had now been addressed.

Councillor AP Taylor, also a Local Ward Member, welcomed the alterations but expressed concerns about the access and egress and related highway and pedestrian safety considerations.

Councillor AM Toon noted that the development would lead to intensification in the use of the site and questioned whether the Traffic Manager had taken into account the cumulative impact of other developments on the local road network.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Traffic Manager had considered the impact of other developments being constructed or were pending and had concluded that the application was acceptable subject to conditions.

Councillor ACR Chappell drew attention to the traffic accident history in the area and commented on the problems caused by parked vehicles along Ledbury Road.

In response to a question from Councillor GFM Dawe, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the design of the development and the use of privacy screens would minimise overlooking.  Councillor Dawe noted the need to consider the impact of developments and loss of gardens on hydrology and the Principal Planning Officer advised that permeable block paving would be used to allow water to penetrate into the ground.

A number of Members felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the free and safe flow of traffic.  Some also felt that the development was over intensive and that garden space should not be lost.

In response to concerns about highway safety and density, the Central Team Leader re-iterated that the Traffic Manager recommended approval and that national and local planning policies emphasised the importance of the re-use of urban land in greater densities.

Councillor Toon felt that the proposal and associated vehicle movements would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.  Therefore, she proposed that the application be refused.

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.         Overdevelopment of the site resulting in an increase in traffic movements that would be detrimental to highway safety.

(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:

Councillor Walling wished it to be recorded that he voted against the resolution above and felt that the decision could difficult to sustain on appeal.

Following the vote on this application, the Head of Planning Services advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was minded to refer the matter to the Planning Committee as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged.]