Demolition of existing residential property & construction of 14 no. apartments, associated car parking, landscaping and access.

Demolition of existing residential property & construction of 14 no. apartments, associated car parking, landscaping and access.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Warwick, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Benbow, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AE Gray, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Members were thanked for attending the site visit.
• Walford Road fell within an area of outstanding natural beauty.
• The development would represent intensification of the site.
• Concerns were raised in respect of the privacy of the neighbouring residents.
• The application should be refused on grounds of visual impact, scale, density and because the site was within the AONB.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PGH Cutter one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Concurred with Mr Warwick and fellow local ward member, Councilor AE Gray
• Noted the concerns of the local residents as well as the various consultees.
• There is merit for the site to be developed through a sympathetic application however the proposal is not suitable.
• The site overlooks the playing field of the local primary school.
• Cars park along Walford Road making it virtually single carriageway.
• The application should be refused on grounds of visual impact.
• Will result in noise concerns for the local residents.

Members discussed the application and voiced their concerns in respect of the application. Concerns related to the density of the development which Members felt would result in over intensification of the site as well as concerns over highways and the loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. Members noted that the UDP stated that local distinctiveness should be protected and that any development in a conservation area should preserve or enhance the area. Members wished it to be noted that they did not object to development on the site but felt that the current proposal was unacceptable.

A Member of the Committee congratulated the case officer and thanked him for a detailed report and presentation. He felt that the application could be classed as ‘garden grabbing’ and felt that the committee should refuse it. The following reasons for refusal were outlined:

1        The granting of the application would result in an adverse visual impact on the character of the conservation area.

2        The granting of the application would result in over intensification of the site.

Another member had a differing view and felt that there were no material planning reasons to refuse the application. He felt that there was sufficient screening between the development and the neighbouring residents properties and noted that the development was of a similar design to others within the county.

In response to a question the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was no maximum density outlined in planning guidance although 50 dwellings per hectare was deemed acceptable.

The Head of Planning and Transportation drew Members attention to the Policy issues raised in paragraph 6.2 of the Officer’s report. He advised Members that he had recently received a letter from the Government regarding development on previously developed land. He noted that PPS3 had been amended following Government commissioned research. The Government had stated in their letter that there was merit in reminding officers that matters regarding previously developed land should be dealt with locally. In summing up the Head of Planning and Transportation stated that it was reasonable for Members to make a decision on the application based on the character of the area. He also advised that Members should make a judgment as to whether granting the application would preserve or enhance the conservation area.

Councillors Cutter and Gray were given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. They reiterated the issues raised in their opening statements and also made a number of addition points, including:

• That the town of Ross on Wye fell within the AONB.
• The comments from all statutory consultees were welcomed.
• The guidance offered by the Head of Planning and Transportation was welcomed.
• The application should be refused for the reasons stated during the debate.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

1          The granting of the application will result in an adverse visual impact on the character of the conservation area.

2          The granting of the application will result in over intensification of the site.