Demolition of redundant commercial premises and erection of 13 residential dwellings.

Demolition of redundant commercial premises and erection of 13 residential dwellings.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, asked a number of questions and the responses of the Principal Planning Officer are summarised below:

1.          The height of the proposed dwellings would be approximately the same as adjacent properties.

2.          The recommendation included conditions requiring a study to assess the possibility of contamination and a remediation scheme to remove or contain any contamination if found.

3.          Noise exposure categories were outlined and it was reported that the Environmental Health Manager had confirmed that subject to appropriate conditions the proposal was acceptable.  Consequently, the recommendation included conditions to mitigate noise impact.

4.          The site had been vacant since 2006 and, although a marketing exercise had been undertaken, no formal offers had been received.  Therefore, an alternative use could be considered.  It was noted that the lack of demand might be due to the type of buildings and the location of the site.

5.          Boundary treatments were not identified in the application but the recommendation included a condition requiring these details.

6.          A breakdown of contributions towards enhanced educational infrastructure was provided.

7.          Residents' parking could be included in the list of items under sustainable transport infrastructure contributions.

Councillor Woodward drew attention to the objections of the Economic Regeneration Manager and Hereford City Council and commented on the need to safeguard employment land, particularly given the shortages north of the river and the potential impact of Edgar Street Grid.  She also commented on parking problems in the area and, given the shortage of facilities, requested that contributions towards enhanced recreational or public open space be designated to the St. Nicholas Ward.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, said that the site was run down but he had concerns about the layout of the proposed dwellings and felt that no development should commence until the area was covered by a residents' parking scheme.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that noise levels were high in the area and suggested that noise attenuation fencing be considered.  Concerns were expressed about the limited amenity space, non-opening windows and access arrangements, particularly for refuse collection.

In response to comments by Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the habitable rooms were focussed to the front of the dwellings and the fixed windows on the rear elevation provided light to areas such as stairwells.

Councillor PA Andrews felt that the layout of the proposal would result in an over intensive form of development, with limited amenity space and potentially reduced standard of living accommodation.  Other Members supported these views.

Councillor RI Matthews reminded officers of the need to discuss local infrastructure requirements with Local Ward Members at the earliest opportunity.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that, as a brownfield site, some form of redevelopment might be appropriate but felt that this proposal was over intensive.  Comments were also made about residents' parking and library facilities.

Councillor NL Vaughan did not feel that the loss of employment land was acceptable, particularly given the limited number of employment sites.  He also felt that it was for potential purchasers to decide whether the accommodation suited their needs.

In response to a question from Councillor SPA Daniels, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal was for open market housing with no affordable housing element.  Councillor Daniels expressed concerns about traffic congestion in the locality.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that the dwellings were likely to be occupied by families and he considered the limited outdoor space to be unacceptable.

In response to a question from Councillor Edwards, the Principal Planning Officer advised that noise attenuation fencing was not proposed in the application but the scheme incorporated a number of measures to mitigate noise impact.  The Central Team Leader reminded the Sub-Committee that the Environmental Health Manager (Noise) had no objections to the application 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 application to the Planning Committee:

1.            Overintensification of the site.

2.            Inadequate amenity space.

3.            Loss of employment land.

(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 Central Team Leader advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]