Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5 two bedroom apartments and provision of public turning area.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Alikija and Mrs Lilley, two of the neighbouring residents, 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, Councillors JD Woodward, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• That she had met with Mr Shaw and Mr Withers to discuss the application but had not indicated to the applicant that she was in support of the application.
• The new application was for 5 two bedroom flats which was an increase of 2 bedrooms over the previous application.
• The local community were united in objection to the application.
• The supplied photographs did not accurately illustrate the parking issues on Tower Road.
• The residents of 40 Tower Road had 7 windows overlooking the proposed development.
• The bungalow which currently occupied the site had been set back from the road to protect the amenity of the neighbouring residents.
• The proposed flats would have an adverse impact on the street scene of Tower Road as the proposed development was too large.
• Could a car be turned in the proposed car park or would they have to exit the site in a reverse gear.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JJD Lavender, the other local ward member, reiterated the points raised by Councillor JD Woodward and made additional comments, including:

• Tower Road had a distinct character and strong local community.
• The proposed development would erode the community spirit.
• The Children’s play area would be overlooked by residents of the flats.
• The application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, H13.11 and H14.2.

Members noted that Tower Road was made up of predominantly detached dwellings and that there were currently no flats on the road. They added that the Council’s Unitary Development Plan stated that the local distinctiveness in an area should be reinforced and that approving the application would not achieve this aim. They added that the proposed development was not in keeping with the area and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. They also voiced their concerns in respect of possible highways issues resulting from the increase in cars on the road should the application be approved.

Members noted that the forthcoming introduction of the localism bill would give the authority greater powers to refuse applications of this nature. They did however note that at present the application had to be determined under the current local and national policy framework.

The Locum Lawyer and the Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste had a brief discussion in respect of section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process. The Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, and the Assistant Director both felt that a decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation would be defensible at appeal and that a Further Information Report would not be required.

Councillors JD Woodward and JJD Lavender were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and requested that the application be refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The local planning authority consider that the proposal is unacceptable in that it would constitute a form of development which by virtue of its form, design, appearance and layout does not respect and is out of character with established residential development in the area.  On this basis the proposal would conflict with Policies DR1, H13(1) and H14(2) of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.