Proposed extension to provide private accommodation, change of use from single dwelling to bed and breakfast and replacement access and parking area.  Painting of external render.

Proposed extension to provide private accommodation, change of use from single dwelling to bed and breakfast and replacement access and parking area.  Painting of external render.

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

§               A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent advising that the extension was now 5.5 metres from the neighbouring property, existing boundary vegetation had recently been removed and the neighbours existing pergola reduced daylight and sunlight to the window due to the timber running south west and the existing dwelling obscured sun from the south east.

§               Amended plans had been submitted reducing the size of the first floor windows to high level obscure glazed windows and reducing the width of the extension by ¾ metre.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The amended plans assisted in mitigating the impact on the neighbour and were considered acceptable.  Therefore, the recommendation was adjusted accordingly.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, made a number of comments, including:

·               The layout suggested a high density of occupation, with consequential impacts on residential amenity and traffic generation.

·               Although obscure glazed windows would partly improve the privacy considerations, the extension would still have an impact on sunlight reaching the neighbouring dwelling which was Grade II listed and situated within the Conservation Area.

·               The development would involve the loss of garden on both the frontage and rear of the property.

·               The design of the railings would not be in keeping with other properties in the locality.

·               Given these and other considerations, Councillor Vaughan proposed that the application be refused as the proposed development would have an overintensive and overbearing impact on the local area, would not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and would be detrimental to residential amenities.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, also expressed a number of points, including:

o              It was questioned whether the property was suitable for the development proposed.

o              Attention was drawn to comment in the report that ‘a parking area could be created under permitted development rights in any event’ and Councillor Wilcox said that the Sub-Committee had to consider the application before them and he did not consider that the proposal would either preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. 

o              Concerns were expressed about the potential impact of the proposed use on traffic movements and highway safety, particularly given the history of accidents on Aylestone Hill.

o              It was suggested that a single, rather than a two storey extension might be more acceptable.  However, the current proposal would be overbearing and would have a deleterious impact on the light and outlook enjoyed by the neighbouring property.

o              The removal of vegetation by the occupants of the neighbouring property was not a material planning issue and should not form part of the consideration.

o              The proposed 36% increase in floor area was considered significant on an already large property.

o              Councillor Wilcox supported refusal of planning permission on the basis that the development would have an overintensive and overbearing impact and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

In response to the comments of the Local Ward Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§               A parking area could be created under permitted development rights, subject to the use of a permeable surface.

§               The existing access was substandard and the new vehicular access would improve highway and pedestrian safety. 

§               The plans did not accurately illustrate the intended appearance of the railings and would be traditional in design.

§               The Conservation Manager had no objections subject to conditions and the boundary treatment and landscaping scheme were outlined.

§               A single storey extension with a pitched roof was likely to be broadly comparable in terms of height with this proposal for a two storey extension with a mansard roof.

§               The 36% increase in floor area was not considered excessive in policy terms.

§               Although the extension would have an impact on the neighbouring property, it was not considered that the impact would be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal of the application.

In response to questions from Councillor DW Greenow, the Principal Planning Officer explained how the impact of the development on light levels and outlook from the neighbouring property had been assessed and confirmed that the size of the parking bays were considered acceptable.  Councillor Greenow expressed reservations about the extension and the limited manoeuvring space for vehicles.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes commented on the shortage of bed and breakfast accommodation, welcomed the proposed improvements to the access, considered the extension to be acceptable, and noted that no objections had been raised by Hereford City Council, the Conservation Advisory Panel or by officers.

The Chairman noted the value of the information provided by both the applicant and the principal neighbour.

Councillor SJ Robertson emphasised the need to preserve and enhance the area and supported the views of the Local Ward Members.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted the need for additional accommodation in the city but said that the character of the area needed to be safeguarded and felt that this proposal would have too great an impact on the neighbouring property.  He also commented on problems with traffic movements on Aylestone Hill and did not consider that the access and parking arrangements would enable visiting drivers to manoeuvre safely.

In response to a question by Councillor KS Guthrie, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the frontage would involve the construction of a traditional dwarf brick wall with traditional railings above, the total height being approximately 1.5m high.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that a number of issues had to be considered and balanced, including: the conservation and preservation of the character of the area; finding a useful future for the building; the need for bed and breakfast accommodation and importance of tourism; and the impact on the amenity of neighbours.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on congestion and highway safety issues on Aylestone Hill and the difficulties associated with egressing the site, particularly when turning right.

The Central Team Leader highlighted a number of issues, including: the access improvements that would result from this proposal; the fall-back position in terms of permitted development rights; the parking bays accorded with the relevant standards; a 1m railing could be erected without planning permission; a bed and breakfast use in this location was considered acceptable; and it was not considered that the proposed extension would be demonstrably harmful to the amenity of the neighbouring property to the extent that refusal of planning permission was warranted.

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.            The proposed development would have an overintensive and overbearing impact on the local area;

2.            Would not be in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and

3.            Would be detrimental to residential amenities.

(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 Development Control Manager explained the Council’s referral procedure and 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.]