Retention of existing dwelling (Penrice) and erection of 8 two and three bedroom dwellings.

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 Rainey, 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:

 

• The previous applications on the site were refused due to visual impact.
• The current proposal has addressed the visual impact issue from Walford Road by retaining the existing dwelling.
• The visual impact from Eastfield Road has also been addressed through the reduction in height of the proposal.
• Could the determination of the application be deferred until the Inspector’s decision on the previous application is known.

 

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

 

• Opposed to the previous application as they were not in keeping with the area.
• A meeting was convened with the planning officer and the developer in order for the developer to present a revised proposal seeking to address local concerns.
• Current proposal does appear to have addressed the majority of the concerns regarding overlooking and visual impact.
• The determination of the application should be deferred pending the Inspector’s decision.
• There was still a great deal of concern from the local residents regarding the application.

 

In response to the comments from the local ward members the Team Leader (South) advised Members that the timescale for the Inspector’s decision was unknown. He added that the application needed to be determined on its merits and expressed concern about deferring it for that reason.

 

The Locum Lawyer advised Members that the appeal decision was not a material planning consideration and therefore the determination of the application should not be deferred for that reason.

 

Members discussed the application and felt that it was more acceptable than the previous two applications which had been refused on the site. They felt that a number of the issues that had been raised during the previous applications had now been resolved. Members advised that they had received a letter from the applicant’s agent which explained the compromises the developer had made in order to make the application acceptable and that the applicant would prefer to implement the current application for housing rather than the previous application which was still the subject of an appeal.

 

In response to a question the Development Manager advised Members that if the appeal was successful and the current application was also approved the decision of which permission to implement would lay solely with the applicant. He added that if the appeal was refused or allowed the current application would still have to be determined.

 

Members continued to discuss the merits of the application and were of the view that the retention of the dwelling known as Penrice was a positive feature of the application as it would not have a detrimental effect on the street scene. It was also noted that the proposed development would result in much needed family housing for the town of Ross-on-Wye.

           

In response to a question regarding the Section 106 agreement, the Team Leader (South) advised that he would discuss the allocation for highways with the Local Ward Members in order to address any local highway needs and that revisions had already been made in respect of potential local projects for providing recreational facilities.

 

In response to a question regarding the garden space allocated to each house, the Team Leader (South) advised Members that there was no policy in respect of garden space. He added that the smallest of the gardens was between 5 and 6 metres in depth with some of the dwellings benefitting from larger gardens.

 

There were some concerns raised in respect of the size of the rooms and the access onto Walford Road. Some Members were of the opinion that the application should be deferred. Members noted the objections from the local residents as well as the petition that had been submitted.

           

In response to the points regarding the dimensions of the rooms, the Development Manager advised that room dimensions could be included in the officer’s report but generally the issue was a commercial decision to be taken by the applicants.

 

A motion to defer the determination of the application failed and the resolution as set out below was agreed.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

2.         B03 Amended plans

 

3.         B07 Section 106 Agreement

 

4.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

5.         H03 Visibility splays

 

6.         H02 Single access - footway

 

7.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

8.         H08 Access closure

 

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

10.       H21 Wheel washing

 

11.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

12.       F16 No new windows in specified elevation

 

13.       F17 Obscure glazing to windows

 

14.       G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

 

15.       G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

16.       G10 Landscaping scheme

 

17.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

2.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

3.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

4.         HN03 Access via public right of way

 

5.         HN26 Travel Plans

 

6.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC