Demolition of existing bungalow and garage to allow for redevelopment comprising 4 no. residential flats with access, car parking, bin / cycle stores, landscaping and other 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Lilley, representing some of the residents od Tower Road, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Shaw, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         Councillor SM Michael, the other local ward member, could not be present due to teaching commitments.

·         The previous reasons for refusal outlined at 3.3 and 3.4 of the officer’s report were still valid.

·         The development previously for 8 one bedroom dwellings was now for 4 two bedroom dwellings so the capacity had not changed.

·         The Inspector had been concerned in respect of the previous design of the development, the current proposal was still an ‘L’ shaped building.

·         By siting the building further back on the site the impact on the neighbouring residents was increased.

·         If all parking spaces were occupied vehicles would not be able to turn in the parking area and would have to reverse out of the site resulting in a danger to pedestrian safety.

·         The proposal was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, DR2, H13 and H14 due to the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents and the impact on the character and appearance of the location.

The debate was opened with Members noting that the local community did not approve of the current planning application on the site. It was also noted that the neighbouring residents did not object to development on the site and that they would welcome an application for two modest family homes.

In response to a question regarding the car park at the rear of the proposed development, the Principal Planning Officer advised that cars could enter and exit the site in a forward gear.

The committee noted the recent appeal decision on the site. It was noted that the original proposal of 8 one bedroom units had been reduced to 4 two bedroom units; and it was felt that the applicant had made every effort to address the concerns of the neighbouring residents in respect of overlooking and car parking.

In response to additional questions raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that each dwelling benefitted from a separate entrance, with one entrance to the front of the site and three entrances to the rear; that the bay windows on the first floor could be conditioned to require obscured glazing but that the inspector had not previously had a concern regarding this and that the proposed dwelling was a comparative height to the neighbouring properties.

Members continued to discuss the application as well as the previous appeal decisions in respect of the site. A number of members stated that they could see why the previous appeals had been dismissed but that they felt that the applicant had addressed all of the concerns raised within his latest submission. The Inspector’s comments, which had not objected to flats on the site, were noted and the Committee felt that a decision contrary to the case officer’s recommendation would be difficult to defend.

In response to a question regarding a possible appeal if the application was refused, the Locum lawyer advised that it was difficult to give a clear opinion however he was of the view that an appeal would be difficult to defend.

Members discussed the possibility of adding a condition to the recommendation requiring any first floor bay windows to be fitted with obscured glazing. There was some concern raised in respect of this as it was felt that if obscured glazing was required, had the issue of overlooking really been adequately addressed in the application.

In addition to the point regarding obscured glazing it was also felt that the application was incongruous to the streetscene, highlighted by the fact the applicant had set the site back further away from the road.

Councillor JD Woodward was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         If all parking spaces were full it would be impossible to turn a vehicle in the car park.

·         It was not possible to predict the outcome of any possible appeal on the site.

·         The application should be refused as it was contrary to UDP policies DR1, DR2, H13 and H14.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation was lost.

A motion to refuse the application due to the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents as it was contrary to policies DR1, DR2, H13 and H14 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan was moved.

Neither the Head of Neighbourhood Planning nor the Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, requested a further information report and the Committee therefore proceeded to the vote where the resolution as set out below was agreed.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The local planning authority, consider that the proposed development, by virtue of its siting, scale, design, mass, layout and fenestration would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property. As such the proposed development would be contrary to policies DR2 (4), H13 (11) and Policy H14 (2) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.