Proposed conversion into nine apartments, including new stair tower  

Proposed conversion into nine apartments, including new stair tower 

The senior planning officer reported that additional information had been received from the applicants. The applicants wished to confirm a copy of a letter has been sent to Kington Town Council explaining the justification for the proposed development. This letter included justification and consideration with regards to refuse and bicycle storage area, proposed access stairs, disabled access, car parking and issues with regards to Harp Yard, affordable housing and land within their ownership adjacent to the site.

The applicants also wished it to be known that the hole in the wall, as observed by members of the planning sub-committee, during their site visit, was already in place when they purchased the site from Herefordshire Council.

Councillor TM James, the Local Ward Member, felt that there was a clear need to redevelop the site as its current condition was unacceptable. He added that the application for nine one bedroomed apartments was over dense for a listed building of such historical importance.  He pointed out that a similar scheme was suggested when the building was owned by Herefordshire Council and that this was not given planning permission. He felt that the development would benefit from fewer larger apartments as Kington already had approximately 40 vacant apartments of which a high proportion had one bedroom, as well as a very high proportion of rented property throughout the town. He moved refusal of the application as he felt that the proposed development would result in over intensification of the site.

Councillor RJ Phillips said he agreed that the development would result in the listed building becoming over developed and he shared Councillor James’ concerns. He commended the planning officer for finding out what was proposed for the adjacent site and added that he felt it was important the two sites were viewed collectively.  He said any development would have to be sensibly designed and be sympathetic towards the historic nature of the chapel.

Several members commented that the proposal did not take account of the architectural or historic value of the chapel. They also expressed the view that the fewer units in the development would make it more suitable for the area.

The Southern team leader advised Members that the application had the support of the Conservation Manager and that if they were to refuse it on the grounds of over intensification, they would need to attach a form of harm to their reasons for refusal. He added that this position would be difficult to defend on appeal.

Members also raised health and safety concerns particularly with regard to access, overcrowding and evacuation arrangements on the site. Members agreed that a garden would be valued by locals and without community support, any development would have little viability.

The Southern Team Leader said that from the course of the debate, it would appear that Members were in agreement that a lack of amenity space should form the grounds to refuse the application and that this was a more sustainable policy position given the number of units and the lack of private amenity space.

Members, on balance, felt that the proposed development was unsuitable for the site. They felt that the historic and architectural value of the former chapel was being overlooked and the lack of a decent amenity space would be of serious detriment to the area.

RESOLVED

     (i)            The Northern 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.

·         lack of amenity space in the development

·         Over intensification of the site

    (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: Subsequent to the vote, The Southern Team Leader said that he would not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services.]