Agenda item

[A] DCCE2008/0112/F and [B] DCCE2008/0114/L - Hereford Conservative Club, 102 East Street, Hereford, HR1 2LW [Agenda Item 8]

[A] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary's office.

[B] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary’s office.

Minutes:

[A] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary's office.

[B] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary’s office.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

§       The draft Heads of Terms should also include the requirement for the payment to be index linked.

§       As the listed building consent had to be referred to the Secretary of State, delegated authority was sought to enable the decision to be issued subject to receipt of no objection from the Secretary of State.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Dr. Channon spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor AM Toon asked for further clarification regarding members’ personal and prejudicial interests.  In response, the Legal Practice Manager advised that, although he had not been able to verify the information provided in good faith, he had made reasonable enquiries which implied that the club was not politically affiliated.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, commented on the intrinsic beauty and historical value of the Grade II* Listed Building.  In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the key differences between this proposal and previous schemes (one withdrawn and one rejected) related to the impact on the integrity of the late medieval hall and later plaster ceiling, and the retention of room proportions.

 

Councillor NL Vaughan noted that a car-free approach was being taken but, as occupiers would probably want access to vehicles, this could have a consequential impact on car parks in the city centre.  Nevertheless, subject to all conditions considered necessary, he supported the application.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox also supported the application but, noting that people with disabilities preferred city centre locations, suggested an additional condition to require a parking area for a powered mobility vehicle.  Councillor Wilcox noted that the Traffic Manager had requested a contribution of £11,720 and the Parks and Countryside Manager had requested £5,040, and he questioned why a contribution of only £5,000 was being sought from the developer.

 

In response to these points, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

§             A parking area would be difficult to achieve given the confines of the site but this could be discussed with the applicant.

§             Negotiations on the level of contribution had been ongoing for some time and, as the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations [SPD] would not be active until 1st April 2008, it was not considered reasonable to require further contributions at this stage.  The Development Control Manager advised that officers considered the contribution to be reasonable given the relative costs involved in undertaking the sensitive conversion of a Grade II* Listed Building.

 

Councillor Wilcox felt that further discussions should be held with the applicant on both the mobility parking and contribution issues.  Other members expressed similar views.

 

The Team Leader - Central advised that there were certain exclusions in the SPD in respect of conversions in the central shopping area.  Some members questioned the fairness of this aspect of the SPD, particularly if rural areas were treated differently.

 

Councillor AT Oliver felt that the unique qualities and context of the site had to be considered and felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.  This was supported by a number of members.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection for the following reasons:

§       the character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration;

§       a judgement is required on visual impact;

§       the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Supporting documents: