Erection of a single storey rear extension and subdivision of existing dwelling into 3 dwellings.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and subdivision of existing dwelling into 3 dwellings.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, commented that the proposal represented an overintensive form of development and did not consider the access and parking arrangements to be adequate.  She also commented on existing problems in the locality and noted that Hereford City Council objected to the application.

Councillor WJ Walling, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the application would be an overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor PJ Edwards expressed concerns about the proposal and considered that it would conflict with Unitary Development Plan policies S2, DR1, DR3, H1, H15, H16 and T11.

A number of Members supported refusal of planning permission.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the property had been constructed as a single family residence and, therefore, the sound proofing might not be sufficient for the proposed use.

In response to a question from Councillor AM Toon, the Planning Officer clarified that a single storey rear extension was permitted and this application would enlarge that extension.  Councillor Toon felt that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area, would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and expressed concerns about the access and lack of amenity space; particularly as no Section 106 contribution could be sought towards off site play areas.

The Locum Lawyer drew attention to policy H17 (Sub-division of existing homes) and reminded the Sub-Committee of the need to identify cogent reasons for refusal.

Councillor Edwards maintained that the application conflicted with the policies that he had identified earlier in the meeting.

The Sub-Committee discussed the potential for problems with the access via the car park to the rear of the property and congestion difficulties in the area.

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 existing property provides family accommodation within an established residential area.  The local planning authority considered that the proposed extension together with the sub-division of the main dwelling would represent an over-intensive development that would be out of keeping with the general character of the area.  In addition, the creation of a new access to the rear of the site would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the general convenience of road users by reason of the loss of the existing parking spaces in the open car park.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the Policies S2, DR1, H1, H15, H16 and T11 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 Central Team Leader advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, in view of the debate and reasons put forward by Members he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]