Removal of existing house and construction of nine flats, including car parking and landscaping and utilising existing vehicular access.

Removal of existing house and construction of nine flats, including car parking and landscaping and utilising existing vehicular access.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• The Environment Agency has no objection in principle but recommends conditions regarding drainage of car parking area and mains drainage.

• The Traffic Manager recommends refusal unless further information is submitted showing a turning head for Ryefield Road with street lighting, amendments to car parking layout to relocate 2 spaces currently shown by the access, adequate cycle parking and a wider access to allow for visibility for pedestrians.

• The Conservation Manager notes the general reduction in scale and the omission of the second floor [in comparison to the earlier application] are particularly welcome and my only comment concerns the position of the vehicular access in the south gable. There are inherent contradictions surrounding the insertion of large voids in masonry buildings and the present return to the south of the access is essentially too short to provide sufficient visual support. Although the overall elevation is not strictly symmetrical, gables are by definition strongly axial and it would be more satisfactory if the access were placed centrally on axis with the ridge.  No objection although conditions for external materials and joinery will be required.  No archaeological concerns have been raised.

• The Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager confirms that a play area is not required but requests a contribution towards sports facilities at Ross Sports Centre based on Sports England’s Sports Facilitators Calculator (£630 per dwelling, total £5,040).

• Applicant’s agent states that the hardstanding will have a membrane to prevent rainwater penetration, with the area of roof discharging into a rainwater harvesting system.

4 additional letters of objection have been received.  In summary the reasons given are:

• Size:  the development is too big for the site and out of keeping with other buildings in the road.  The floor area is about double the size of Cherrington, (probably the largest house in the road) and approximately treble in overall mass.  It is not accepted that the proposed building would fit in well with other buildings with regard to massing.

• Density: 9 apartments on 1/3 acre site no longer sits comfortably within the density of the Ryefield Road and surrounding area but substantially changes its character and density.

• Parking:  11 spaces is still inadequate.  Ryefield Road is increasingly heavily used for parking and the probable overspill from the proposed building will increase this problem.  9 flats would mean 18 extra cars and consequently will result in extra on-street parking.

• Traffic:  Ryefield Road traffic discharges onto Gloucester Road at a place where visibility is very restricted and the extra traffic will increase the probability of accidents.  Necessary therefore to increase the splay of that exit to improve visibility but even so, it will continue to be a dangerous point.

• Amenity:  overlooking of houses and gardens in North Road and change their rear aspect.  Extra noise and traffic at the rear of gardens would add to noise from nearby trading estate.  Latter is quiet at night but car park would be in constant use.  Smell of rubbish bins which would be next to rear gardens.  Overall would reduce neighbours’ quality of life.

• Drainage:  Green Orchard has an easement for one house to use foul drain which runs through Cherrington before discharging into the main sewer in Ryefield Road.  This drain is only 3” diameter and blocks regularly.  It is not clear how sewage will be dealt with.

One letter also points out that whilst unacceptable the proposal is less intrusive and visually dominant and more in keeping with other houses in Ryefield Road than the earlier scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following comments:

• The applicant’s agent has agreed in principle to widen the access to provide a turning head.  This may not be to the full standard but as the turning head is not required by this development, which meets the parking requirement and both residents and visitors can be expected to park and turn within the site, this would not be grounds to refuse permission.  The other highway concerns can be met by planning conditions.  The Sports contribution does not overcome an impediment to development and until the SPD is approved is not justified.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Nelsey and Mr Pope spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor AE Gray, one of the Local Ward Members, noted that an application on the site had previously been refused due to the scale of the development and concerns regarding parking. She felt that these matters had not been sufficiently addressed and that the traffic managers concerns had not been appeased. She therefore felt that she could not support the application.

Councillor PGH Cutter, the other Local Ward Member, was concerned with the absence of comments from the Town Council and suggested that the application be deferred pending receipt of comments. He also voiced his concerns regarding the amount of additional information received by Members at the start of the meeting and felt that they had been given insufficient time to study it fully. Finally he felt that the two local ward members should have been consulted in respect of the section 106 agreement.

Councillor H Bramer had a number of concerns in respect of the application regarding the impact on privacy and the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents as well as the visual impact of the proposal.

Councillor RH Smith noted that local ward members would be consulted on section 106 agreements regarding their wards once the Planning SPD was adopted by the Council. He felt that it may be beneficial for members to be consulted in the interim period and asked that this be included as a recommendation in the Southern Area Planning report.

RESOLVED

That:   (i)    That on expiry of the consultation period (8th February, 2008) the Southern 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 application to the Planning Committee:

A)     Visual Impact

B)    Loss of amenity to neighbouring residents

C)    Traffic and parking concerns

D)    Impact on privacy

E)     Overlooking

(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 he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]