Proposed amendment of 39 previously approved residential dwellings and their associated parking to 51 residential dwellings to plots 99-137 & 505-517 creating an additional 12 dwellings and their associated parking.

Proposed amendment of 39 previously approved residential dwellings and their associated parking to 51 residential dwellings to plots 99-137 & 505-517 creating an additional 12 dwellings and their associated parking.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and the following updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Amended plans had now been received which addressed the previous concerns in the report.

§               The Highways Agency had indicated, shortly before the meeting, that it did not have any objections to the application, although written confirmation of this position was awaited.

§               It was recommended that, once all other matters were resolved, the requirement for the supplemental Section 106 Agreement be dealt with by condition.

Councillor ACR Chappell and ATO Oliver, Local Ward Members, had declared prejudicial interests but, in accordance with the Constitution [Appendix 12, Members Code of Conduct, Part 2, paragraph 12 (2)], wished to exercise the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes before withdrawing from the meeting.  Councillor Chappell commented on the need to ensure that contributions towards enhanced educational infrastructure were received.  Councillor Oliver commented on the limited sustainability measures and amenity space, felt that the density of over 50 dwellings per hectare was unacceptable, and noted existing problems with parking and traffic movement which could be exacerbated by this development.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes expressed concerns about the narrowness of the road network and potential highway safety implications, the high density of development proposed, and the quality of the design approach.  Therefore, Councillor Lloyd-Hayes proposed that planning permission be refused.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on the planning history of the site and the significant increases in unit numbers and density since the masterplan for the redevelopment of Bradbury Lines was first presented.  He also commented on the consequential impact on parking and traffic routes through the estate and on the quality of life for local residents.  He said that a further increase in density was not acceptable and that the proposal was contrary to policy H15 (Density).

In response to questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that

s                The whole of Phase 3 was required to meet the Eco Homes standard of Very Good and, although this standard had been replaced by the Code for Sustainable Homes, the developers sought to maintain this or a similar standard with the new dwellings; a condition for this purpose had been recommended accordingly.

s                There had been several Section 106 Agreements across various applications and these had, in essence, been complied with and contributions paid; it was noted that a payment was required upon occupation of the 501st dwelling and this was expected in the next few months.

s                The Unitary Development Plan gave the estimated capacity of the estate as 600 dwellings.

s                The narrowness of the road network was intentional as it incorporated 'Home Zone' elements, aimed at reducing traffic speeds.  Furthermore, the parking ratio for phase 3 was above that required by the Unitary Development Plan

s                The amount of public open space, approved as part of the original outline planning permission, exceeded policy requirements.

s                It was acknowledged that the density of the site was above the upper limits of that recommended by policy H15 but it was not considered that the higher density would be visibly higher than that on the other parcels of land.

s                The design approach and layout followed that established by Phase 3 and was supported on that basis.

Councillor SJ Robertson commented that the total number of dwellings on the estate equated to a small village and did not consider that further dwellings could be accommodated without further detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Councillor AM Toon felt that the density should not increase further than that established through Phase 3 and that the upper limits of policy H15 might be considered acceptable in town centre locations but this site was located on the southern edge of the city.

Councillor Lloyd-Hayes re-iterated concerns about density, highways, layout and amenity considerations.

Councillor DB Wilcox noted that the density had increased over various phases of development and the layout was largely determined, however he did not consider it appropriate for the density level to increase beyond that already established.

Councillor RI Matthews noted the pressure being placed on local authorities to increase housing numbers but also noted the need for caution against potential over development and detrimental impacts on existing residents.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the adjustment to the housing mix resulted from current market conditions which had reduced demand for larger four and five bedroomed units.  Given that the final layout and appearance would be similar to nearby dwellings, the proposal was considered consistent with the character of the wider development.

Councillor GA Powell commented on the planning history of the site and the impact of various planning permissions on density, highways and play areas.

Councillor Toon commented on possible occupancy levels at the care home and the allocation of land for this purpose did not justify an increase in density elsewhere.

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:

The proposal by virtue of the increased density would result in an unacceptable residential environment with particular regard to residential amenity and parking provision and is therefore contrary to policy H15 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(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 Northern Team Leader advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and had the potential for an award of costs at appeal, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation as the Sub-Committee's view might not be defensible if challenged.]