[A] Erection of 6 No apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[B] Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[A] Erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[B] Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

The Team Leader – Central provided the following updates:

§             A letter had been received from the applicants advising that they were prepared to contribute towards the cost of investigating and, if the criteria was met, implementing a Traffic Regulation Order to provide double yellow lines along the widened section of Walney Lane.

§             Therefore, delegated authority was requested to either prepare and complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act or if deemed appropriate, insert an extra condition requiring the submission of a planning obligation prior to the commencement of the development.  This obligation would require the developer to pay Herefordshire Council, upon the commencement of the development, the sum of £6,000 for the investigation and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, noted that the widening of Walney Lane had resulted in indiscriminate parking and he felt that this application would exacerbate the situation and should be refused.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, thanked the officer for his work on this application and for the negotiations with the applicant.  Nevertheless, he considered that the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site, particularly given that the area was characterised by large detached properties set back from the road.  He felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area, on the adjacent listed building and on the character of Walney Lane.  If any planning permission was granted, however, he felt that the number of parking spaces should be increased to at least nine; with the use of Grasscrete or similar to minimise visual impact.

Councillor PJ Edwards acknowledged the concerns of the Local Ward Members and the difficulties associated with balancing Conservation Area considerations with modern demands.  Drawing attention to the comments of the Conservation Manager and to the recommended conditions, he felt that the application was acceptable on balance.  He felt that any approval should include: additional car parking; cycle parking; parking for motorised mobility vehicles; and a scheme of refuse storage.

Councillor PA Andrews said that the Conservation Area should be protected and commented on the impact of the loss of older properties and the erection of flats on other roads in the locality, especially in Folly Lane.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that there were other apartment buildings in the area and did not feel that there were any reasons to warrant refusal of this proposal.

In response to comments made by members, the Team Leader – Central advised that:

§             The introduction of double yellow lines had been discussed before Walney Lane was widened but, in order to protect the rural nature of the lane, was not pursued at that time.  However, indiscriminate parking had become an issue and parking restrictions were now considered necessary.

§             It was not considered that the building would be out of proportion with other properties in the locality, particularly as the slab levels would be excavated into the rising ground level.  Also, given the position of windows in the existing property, it was not considered that there would be any material increase in overlooking.

§             Car parking spaces could be increased from eight to nine, it was noted that the Traffic Manager had recommended that nine be provided.

§             Attention was drawn to the comments of the Conservation Manager, particularly that there was no objection to the demolition of the existing building provided that the replacement ‘would be in keeping with the character of the area’.  Officers considered that the design now proposed would harmonise with the character and appearance of other properties in the Conservation Area.

§             Conditions could be added in respect of cycle parking and refuse storage.

Councillor Vaughan noted that the existing building was in a state of disrepair but he did not consider that this warranted the demolition of the property.

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:

§               The proposed development will adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to policies DR1, HBA6 and HBA7 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(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, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.

Councillor DB Wilcox asked that the additional conditions suggested by members be reported to the Planning Committee, should the applications be referred to it.  Councillor AM Toon noted problems with flooding in the locality and suggested that consideration be given to the impact of the proposed development upon this.]