Erection of sixteen dwellings, construction of vehicular access and associated works.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. The Principal Planning Officer also verbally reported the receipt of a further four letters of objection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Hepworth, representing some of the residents of Hawthorn Rise, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The site inspection was welcomed and gave the committee the opportunity to see at first hand the issues that concerned the local residents.

·         There was no objection to housing on the site as it was within the settlement boundary and designated for housing in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

·         The residents of Hawthorn Rise had suffered through an excessive build time with the development still not being completed.

·         The proposed access was not acceptable. The initial plans for Hawthorn Rise did not show a gap between numbers 12 and 13 where the new access was now being proposed. The current construction access situated to the north west of the site was deemed more suitable.

·         There were also concerns in respect of drainage. The ditch being proposed for drainage, which was located at the south east of the site, was higher than the centre of the site. If permission was granted there would have to be a clear drainage condition.

·         A condition to address the concerns regarding overhead electricity cables was also proposed.

·         Concerns were also expressed regarding the allocation of affordable homes on the site. It was suggested that the affordable homes be integrated into the site and not situated together in one row. It was noted that this could be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

Members opened the debate by thanking the officers for a thorough and detailed site inspection.

The committee expressed concerns in respect of the proposed access. It was felt that the residents of Hawthorn Rise had bought their homes in good faith after viewing site plans which did not indicate an access between numbers 12 and 13. The Committee were of the opinion that the applicant should investigate other options in respect of the access, particular reference was made to the current construction access to the north west of the site.

Members did discuss the possibility of deferring the determination of the application to give the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the access.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised members that the concerns regarding the access could not be suitably addressed through a deferral as the applicant would have to submit a new application if the access was to be revised as had been suggested. He also stated that the proposed access was 4.5 metres wide and complied with highway standards.

Members also discussed their concerns in respect of the overhead cables, it was noted that this issue could be addressed through a suitable condition at the reserved matters stage. The issue in respect of the affordable housing was also noted. Members agreed with the local ward member that the affordable homes should be integrated throughout the site and not situated in one row.

During the debate members discussed refusing the application. One member was of the opinion that the access was out of character and would have a negative effect on the setting and surroundings for the residents of Hawthorn Rise. Another member expanded on this and was of the opinion that approving the application would result in a loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents as well as changing the character of the street scene.

Councillor PD Price was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The residents of Peterchurch did not object to development on the site.

·         There was potential for even further development to the North West of the site so the proposed access could be heavily used.

·         The UDP should be amended to allow the access road to also serve as a vehicular access to the recreation area.

A motion to defer the determination of the application in order for further discussions in respect of the proposed access to take place was lost.

The substantive motion to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation was subject to the further information procedure as set out in the Council’s constitution. A further information report was not requested from the Head of Neighbourhood Planning or the Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, therefore the Committee proceeded to the vote.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1          The position of the proposed access serving significant additional residential development would by reason of its proximity to existing properties in Hawthorn Rise and the associated increased levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity have an adverse effect upon the established residential character of the cul-de-sac and the residential amenity of existing occupiers.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DR2 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.