Change of use of dwelling into 3 no. apartments.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman advised that agenda items 9 and 10 were neighbouring dwellings and that the applications had both been submitted by the same person. He therefore agreed to consider both items together but took two separate votes and allowed separate public speaking times for both applications.

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, Mr Tillett, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ballantyne, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AN Bridges and PJ Edwards, two of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had highlighted the issues at the site.

·         The Transport Manager’s comments were not agreed with.

·         The dwelling was located on a popular route to and from Rivermead Primary School.

·         The Council encouraged people to cycle yet this application impacted on the cycle route from Belmont to the City.

·         The application should not have been granted for the original dwelling in 2002.

·         There was a risk of flooding in the area.

·         Could the 2 ½ storey dwelling be converted easily, would there be appropriate emergency access?

·         Unrealistic to expect all of the dwellings to have just one car each.

·         The third parking space was proposed to be between the two dwellings, how would this be controlled if one of the dwellings was sold?

·         The Planning Inspector had upheld decisions to refuse planning permission in the area previously.

·         The public access to the river would be blocked.

·         The position of the strengthening wall would result in the back end of the vehicle being in the cycle lane.

·         The application was contrary to S1, T11 and DR3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The debate was opened with a Councillor speaking in support of the application. He was surprised that the dwelling had been empty since it was built in 2002 and was of the opinion that the application would bring an empty building back into use. He noted that there would be either 6 or 7 parking spaces on the two sites and considered this to be sufficient. He did request an additional condition regarding a fence between the two dwellings in order to give a clear visual separation in respect of parking provision.

The issue of the dwelling being used as a house of multiple occupancy if the application was refused was discussed. It was noted that no planning permission would be required to use the house as an HMO. One member noted that a HMO was similar to a single household and would benefit from lower vehicular movements than the three separate households being created under the proposed application. He considered that the proposed application would result in an over intensification.

Members continued to discuss the application and had concern in respect of the application. It was considered that the increase in vehicular movements would not be acceptable.

Councillors Bridges and Edwards were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         There was no objection to bringing the dwelling back into use, however it had to be a suitable use.

·         The proposed application would result in over intensification of the site.

·         There were 1700 homes in Belmont and this dwelling was on the main cycle route into the city.

·         There was poor visibility for vehicles pulling out of the drive.

·         If the application was approved there should be secure cycle storage included.

·         The application site was within the conservation area.

·         Vehicles would be parked over a cycle lane.

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

Members noted the concerns raised during the debate and moved that the application be refused. They considered that the application was contrary to UDP Policy H17; that the application would result in an over intensification of the Ferrymead site; and that the application would result in an unacceptable increase in the number of households.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed subdivision of the dwelling would represent an unacceptable intensification of the residential use of the building that consequently would have an undue adverse impact upon the general character of the area, having particular regard to additional traffic movements and the nature of the highway. As such the proposal would fail to comply with Policy H17 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.