Proposed erection of 4 no. bungalows and 2 no. houses.

Proposed erection of 4 no. bungalows and 2 no. houses.

The following update was reported:

§             Two further letters of objection had been received, one of which attached photographs of Villa Street showing cars parked on the road.  It was reported that the letters did not raise any new issues.

Councillor PJ Edwards, a Local Ward Member, proposed that the application be refused.  He considered that the access arrangements were unacceptable given that Villa Street formed part of a strategic cycleway, was the only suitable route for the residents of some 1700 properties to cycle safely into the city, and was a recommended Safe Route to School for Hunderton School.  He felt that a 'built out' access junction, coupled with a similar proposal nearby (approved but not yet implemented), would be a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.  He also considered that the design and siting of the proposed dwellings would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and on the character of the area.

Councillor H Davies, also a Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about the density of the proposal and about highway safety, particularly as the road was narrow and the potential for accidents involving children given the proximity of a popular play area.

Councillor GA Powell, the other Local Ward Member, also expressed concerns about access and egress and felt that Villa Street was already over congested.  She added that there was no pavement and questioned whether the proposed access arrangements met good practice guidelines.  She said that there were drainage problems in the area and suggested that this development could exacerbate the situation.  Councillor Powell also drew attention to the objections of Hereford City Council, the Conservation Area Panel and local residents.  She considered that the development was over intensive, would have a detrimental impact on the settings and surroundings, would have an unacceptable visual impact and would compromise highway safety.

Councillor AT Oliver supported the views of the Local Ward Members and, in particular, felt that the indicative layout would not be compatible with the area.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to a number of matters raised during the discussion, including:

·             It was reported that the Council's Highway Engineers had thoroughly assessed the application and were satisfied that the safe access could be achieved.

·             The density of the proposal was considered suitable for the urban context of the site; it was noted that such sites needed to be developed at higher densities in order to avoid development on greenfield sites.

·             The direct impact on this application on the strategic cycleway would be negligible, particularly when compared to the supermarket developments that had been allowed to cross Great Western Way.

Councillor Davies re-iterated concerns about the density of the proposal, especially given the likely proximity of the units to existing residential properties, and about highway safety.

Councillor Edwards commented that the Conservation Area was more sensitive than the heavily urbanised setting of the supermarkets on Great Western Way and felt that the impact of this development on the character of the area would be unacceptable.  He also felt that the development would be over intensive and the additional traffic generated by the use would compromise the safety of the access.

The Central Team Leader reminded the Sub-Committee that the application was in outline form with only the principle of development and the means of access for consideration.  Nevertheless, officers considered that the indicative layout would not result in significant detriment to adjoining residents.  He also reminded the Sub-Committee that Villa Street was a shared route and the Traffic Manager had no objections subject to conditions.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)      The Central 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 and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.   The proposed removal of one bungalow and replacement with six dwellings would be out of character with the area, have an impact detrimental to the amenity of adjoining neighbours and be overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies DR1, H1, H13, H14 and H15 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.   In addition the proposal for use of a 'built out' junction to access the site would be detrimental to highway safety and safety of pedestrians and cyclists that use the adjoining strategic cycle route.  Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Policies DR3, T6, T7 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation 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 Head of Planning and Transportation advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Planning Committee given the reasons put forward by Members.]