Site for development to form 21 apartments.

Site for development to form 21 apartments.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

• There had been further discussions between the agent and the Public Rights of Way Manager with regard to the fence forming the boundary between the site and the public footpath. No further written comments had been received and it is therefore recommended that an additional condition be imposed requiring details of it to be agreed before development commences.

• The comments of the Conservation Manager had been received. He objects to the application on the basis that the scheme represents an over-intensive use of the site, its massing incoherent with no rationale for the height changes in the blocks and that they are overbearing in both their form and proportion.

• Nine further letters of objection had been received raising the same points as expressed at paragraph 5.3 of the report.

• Email correspondence had been received from a local resident referring to a recent traffic accident on Pinsley Road. An attached comment from a local police officer advised that this involved a single vehicle which hit a wall and did not involve anyone else other than its driver, who appeared to have lost control of the vehicle.

• The Transportation Manager had commented on the contents of the email and suggested that such accidents will occur, irrespective of whether this development is approved or not, and that it appeared to have occurred as a result of an irresponsible road user.

The Principal Planning Officer made the following comments:

• Condition 7 is included with respect to rail noise and not road noise as stated in the recommendation.

• A 2% surcharge for the monitoring of Section 106 Agreements has been omitted from the Draft Heads of Terms. This amounts to £980.

• In response to the comments of the Public Rights of Way manager in respect of the fence dividing the site and public footpath, it is recommended that an additional condition is included.

• The objections received from local residents and the Conservation Manager are addressed in the Officers appraisal part of the report. No new issues are raised and therefore there is nothing further to add.

• The additional comments from the Transportation Manager deal with the comments in relation to the recent traffic accident. It should be noted that the Draft Heads of Terms Agreement does include a contribution towards highway improvements and it would be reasonable for this contribution to be used for specific highway safety works on Pinsley Road.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Thomas, representing Leominster Town Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Tomkins, the applicant, spoke in support.

Councillor RC Hunt, the local ward member, advised the sub-committee that a similar application had been refused in June. He felt that the amended plans before today’s sub-committee differed only slightly from the plans presented previously. He added that the Conservation Manager’s comments echoed his view that the development would not be in keeping with the existing area. He felt that issues of highway safety had not been adequately addressed especially considering the history of road accidents in the area.

Members were in agreement that there was a danger of overdevelopment in the area and were concerned that the development made no provision for affordable homes.

In response to a Member’s question, the Central Team Leader commented that refusal of the application on grounds of highway safety would be difficult to defend on appeal as there had been no objections from the Highways Department.

Members felt, on balance, that the proposed development was too large and not acceptable for the area and voted to refuse the application.

RESOLVED

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

1.      Concerns regarding the design of the development

2.      Density

3.      Impact on the conservation area

4.      Highway safety concerns

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, the Central Team Leader said that he was minded to refer the application to the Head of Planning Services]