Proposed construction of 4 houses and garages.

The application was 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. He added that it was agreed that the access was not up to required standards but felt that a balance had to be taken between this and the improvements the application would bring to the area.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Widdowson, representing Kington Town Council, and Ms Rolls, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr La Barre, a neighbouring resident the applicant’s agent [amended at Planning Committee 6 June 2012], spoke in support.

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

·         The access did not meet the required criteria.

·         There were a number of small dwellings available on the market in Kington as well as a number of high density developments.

·         The site would accommodate one or two dwellings but four was excessive.

·         The suggestion that local traffic flow was slow through Duke Street was disputed.

·         It was further noted that the access was onto a busy road where a number of pedestrians would be walking at all times of day.

·         Concern was expressed as to whether emergency vehicles would be able to gain access to the dwellings through the narrow access.

·         The access came onto the main route for children going to the town’s primary and secondary schools.

Members discussed the application and had serious concerns in respect of the access. The comments of the transportation manager were noted and concern was expressed in respect of his comments regarding vehicular speeds on Duke Street. Members felt that the site visit had been extremely beneficial in assisting them with the concerns which had been raised in respect of the access.

Members noted the concerns in respect of emergency vehicles accessing the site and agreed that they would not be able to navigate the proposed access.

Members discussed the reasons for refusal with Unitary Development Plan Policies H13, S1, T8 and DR3 being put forward as reasons for refusing the application.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there were currently two accesses to the site although one was through a historic wall which had been breached, the application included a proposal to restore this wall, however it could be used for access to the site during the construction phase. In response to a further question he advised that the proposed access was 3.1 metres wide.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning & Regulatory) requested clarification in respect of the reasons for refusal. After a brief discussion policies H13 and DR3 emerged as the two key policies in refusing the application. A refusal of the application on these grounds was moved and seconded.

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

·         The owner of the Oxford Arms had not formally objected to the application as he was not permitted to under the terms of a legal agreement signed when he purchased the premises.

·         In response to a question the Kington Town Council were all elected Members.

·         There was not a need for small houses in the area, there were already a number of vacant dwellings in the town.

·         The previous 4-5 years had seen approximately a 20% increase in the number of houses in Kington.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning and the Locum Lawyer  (Planning and Regulatory) discussed the legal implications in respect of the application being refused contrary to the Principal Planning Officer’s recommendation in accordance with paragraph 5.13.10 of the Council’s constitution. They were both of the opinion that a further information report was not required and therefore the Committee proceeded to the vote.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         It is considered that the proposed access would compromise the safety of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Duke Street, by virtue of the narrow nature, the poor visibility at the point junction between the site access and Duke Street and the consequent intensification in traffic movements on the local road network.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DR3, H13 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

[At the conclusion of the item the meeting was adjourned (1:15 pm), the meeting was then reconvened at 1:45 pm.]