Erection of 8 flats.

Erection of 8 flats.

The Head of Development Management 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 Mrs Lilley and Mrs Bashir spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JD Woodward, a local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including;

• Concerns regarding highways including a lack of turning provision as well as concerns regarding impact on the Tower Road and Breinton Road junction.
• Increased traffic as a result of the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy DR3.
• The proposal was out of keeping with the street scene and was contrary to policy DR1 in terms of layout, density, scale and mass.
• The local ward member and the local residents were happy with development on the site but felt that the current proposal was unacceptable.
• Concerns were expressed in respect of a lack of consultation regarding the section 106 agreement.

Members discussed the application and noted that there were no flats on Tower Road at present and that the existing bedsits were currently in the process of being returned to family dwellings. Members also expressed concerns regarding the difficulty in monitoring Condition 2, which stated that the dressing rooms would not be used as bedrooms.

On balance Members felt that the application should be refused due to over development, garden grabbing, and due to the fact that the character and appearance of the development were out of keeping with the area.

In respect of concerns regarding garden grabbing, the Head of Development Management advised that PPS3 had recently been amended. He stated that previously there was a presumption in favour of development of brown field land but since the revision there was no longer a presumption in favour of such development. However this did not mean that the land could not be developed. He added that the proposed application did meet the revised criteria.

In response to a question regarding Section 106 contributions, the Head of Development Management advised that monies had not been forthcoming for a number of applications referred to by Members as the developments had not been commenced.

The Head of Development Management also advised that the distance from the proposed development to the neighbouring boundary was three and a half metres, with the nearest dwelling being seven and a half metres away.

One Member of the Committee expressed concerns in respect of PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Developments. He felt that the provision of parking spaces would encourage car use resulting in the additional use of fossil fuels.

As the Committee were minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation, the Head of Development Management and the Monitoring Officer’s representative discussed the reasons for refusal outlined by the Committee and in accordance with paragraph 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution they felt that major policy issues were not at stake and that the decision would be defendable if challenged, therefore the motion was put to the vote.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

• Over intensive form of development (policies DR1, H13 and H14 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan)

• The character and appearance of the development are out of keeping with the area (policies DR1, H13 and H14 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan)