Demolition of existing residential property, construction of 8 no. apartments, 3 no. town houses with associated car parking, landscaping and access.

The Team Leader (South) 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 Bowring, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Tarzey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         There had been consultation between the local ward members and the applicants but no agreement had been reached in respect of the application.

·         Why did the existing house need to be demolished?

·         A single dwelling on the site would be preferred by local residents.

·         Approving the application would have a detrimental effect on the street scene.

·         The application was similar to the one refused by the Planning Committee earlier this year.

·         The petition was signed by genuine people from the area.

·         No affordable housing as part of the development.

·         The application would result in over development of the site and the footprint of the development was too large.

·         There was not enough parking on the site, there would therefore be a negative impact on the highway.

·         Could the application be deferred pending the results from the appeal?

·         Concerns regarding DR1, HBA6 and H13 had not been addressed.

• The residents of Eastfield Road would still be able to see the propose development.

In response to the local ward members comments regarding a possible deferral of the application the Head of Development Management advised members that the application should not be deferred pending the outcome of any pending appeal decision. He confirmed that the current appeal on the site was due to be determined in December 2010 but that this could not be guaranteed. He also confirmed that the authority could be subject to an appeal on the grounds of non determination if the application was not determined.

Some members voiced their concerns in respect of the proposed height, mass, footprint and appearance of the development. They were also concerned that the proposed car parking provisions would not meet the demands of the residents.

Other members of the Committee noted that there was a need for development on the site and that the proposed application was an improvement on the previous application on the site, which was still subject of an appeal. It was also noted that approving the application would not result in a precedent being set as any application in the area would have to be determined on its merits.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Locum Lawyer confirmed that if the appeal was successful then the inspector would determine suitable conditions. He also advised that PPS3 had been amended to remove the reference to 30 dwellings per hectare and that the amendments did not restrict development of gardens.

One member was concerned that the Section 106 draft heads of terms did not pay particular regard to Ross-on-Wye. Members felt that any funds secured by means of a Section 106 agreement should be used in the application area.

Members discussed the application and felt that the application should be refused as the design, scale, and massing would represent an over-development of the site. The site would also be out of keeping with the established character of the area and have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents. Therefore it was deemed that the application should be refused as it was contrary to policies DR1, HBA6, H13 and PPS3.

Councillors Cutter and Gray were given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. They reiterated their concerns in respect of the application and thanked the Committee for their comments.

RESOLVED

That the proposal would be an inappropriate form of development and by virtue of its detailed design, scale and massing would represent an over-development of the site that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Ross-on-Wye Conservation Area and the established residential character of the area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DR1, HBA6 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.