Erection of a terrace of 4 cottages.  Amendment to parking areas.  (Revised scheme).

Erection of a terrace of 4 cottages.  Amendment to parking areas.  (Revised scheme).

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             Discussions had taken place with the applicant with a view to securing a financial contribution towards the future maintenance of the burial grounds on the site and/or a condition securing a landscape management plan to enhance the burial grounds.  The applicants had confirmed that they owned the burial grounds on either side of the application site.  The burial ground to the south would be landscaped in accordance with a scheme that had been agreed with the Sisters of the former convent and the founder of the Hospice and would be controlled by a Management Committee of residents.  The site to the north had just been acquired and the applicants were happy to have a condition attached to any permission to require landscaping/future maintenance of this site.

§             If Members were minded to grant planning permission subject to the future maintenance of the burial grounds, officers recommended that a further condition be attached to any permission requiring details of the landscaping and future maintenance of these areas to be approved.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Tufnell spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to the planning history and sensitive context of the site.  He felt that the area had reached the maximum limits of development potential and that any further buildings would represent an over intensive development of the site and would restrict views of the Listed Buildings.  He felt that parking provision should not be reduced given the relatively low level of existing parking and drew attention to the comment of the Traffic Manager that ‘…some concern is expressed at the absence of a turning area for a refuse lorry…’.  He also drew attention to the concerns of local residents about foul drainage arrangements.  Given these considerations, he proposed that planning permission should be refused.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that: the scale of the new build was designed to be subservient to the existing buildings; given the scale of the Listed Buildings, views from public vantage points were unlikely to be obscured; the scheme was in accordance with planning policy and it was not considered that a refusal reason based on lack of parking provision could be sustained given that this issue was not a reason for refusal on the previous application; and the failures in a pumping mechanism of the unadopted foul sewage holding tank was an independent matter, separate to this application.  The Central Team Leader added that recommended condition 9 would ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements for the development would be provided.  He also advised that the Convent and surrounding area was within a sub area of the Bartestree settlement boundary and that the principle of new residential development was accepted.

In response to a question from Councillor DB Wilcox, the Legal Practice Manager explained the public speaking procedure.  It was noted that the Constitution provided the general framework that permitted the public to speak at meetings of Planning Committees, subject to certain criteria, but it did not define precisely the methodology to be used.  Therefore, the Planning Chairman’s Group, a working group of Councillors and officers, had sought to clarify the order of proceedings and in their recent newsletter confirmed they considered that those members of the public who had registered to speak upon an agenda item, should speak before any debate on a particular application, so that all relevant information had been provided to Members.   A parish council representative and an objector had been invited to speak at the last meeting.  The item was subsequently deferred for a site visit.  However, the applicant’s agent was not present at the last meeting but had registered to speak at the current meeting and had been permitted to speak as the ‘supporter’ slot had not been exhausted at the last meeting.  Councillor Wilcox commented on the need for balanced opportunities for public speakers to address the Sub-Committee.

Councillor Wilcox commented on the number of additional dwellings that had been approved in recent years and asked whether the site could be considered as one complete development for affordable housing purposes.  The Central Team Leader advised that no affordable housing had been secured as part of the original planning permission for the conversion of the Convent and construction of new buildings and that the subsequent planning applications had been for smaller individual developments which did not trigger the affordable housing requirements.  Therefore, there was no policy basis to secure affordable housing in respect of this proposal.

A number of Members concurred with the Local Ward Member’s views and commented on the need to protect and restore the adjacent burial grounds.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented that the recent developments complemented the Listed Buildings but felt that this proposal would result in the urbanisation of the street scene and would have a have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The Central Team Leader noted that Members did not consider the reasons for refusal in respect of a previous planning application had been overcome [DCCE2006/1978/F refers] but advised that a new technical reason for refusal based on concerns about drainage issues was unlikely to be sustained on appeal.  Councillor Greenow withdrew drainage issues from the motion of refusal.

In response to a question from Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Development Control Manager advised that the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 [hereafter ‘UDP’] provided a better policy basis for future developments and officers were acutely aware of the need to secure affordable housing and recognised the concerns about incremental development as a means of avoiding affordable housing thresholds.

In response to questions, the Central Team Leader briefly explained the differences between this application and that previously refused and outlined the options available to the authority to ensure the protection of the burial grounds.

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 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 Convert, 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 PPG 15: 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 officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services in this instance given the reasons put forward by the Sub-Committee.]