Proposed redevelopment to incorporate 7 retail units and 14 residential units.

Proposed redevelopment to incorporate 7 retail units and 14 residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of a letter from the solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant which confirmed that the Hereford Bowling Club no longer had any rights to access the bowling green from the current car park.  The Principal Lawyer (Planning, Environment and Transport) stressed that the access issue did not constitute planning grounds to refuse.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Stringer spoke against the application.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the access to the bowling green was a sensitive issue but was not an issue which the Council could consider in determining this application; it was noted that Officers would give every possible assistance to the Bowling Club to identify alternative potential access arrangements.  He explained that the proposal complied with the Development Plan policy and outlined how the scheme could offer significant townscape enhancement and benefit to the Conservation Area.

Some Members expressed concerns about the architectural merit of the design and felt that this site was not an appropriate location for this design approach given the nature of the historic environment.

In response to questions on parking issues, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a car free development was considered acceptable having regard to all the services and amenities which were available associated with city centre living.  Whilst noting national planning policy, some Members maintained the view that car free developments were impracticable in Herefordshire given the lack of public transport infrastructure in the County.

Some Members felt it highly regrettable that existing access to the bowling green would be removed and concerns were expressed about the future viability of the Bowling Club. 

In order to promote alternative modes of transport, it was suggested that any planning permission granted should include the provision of one cycle per residential unit.

In response to concerns about the design approach, the Principal Planning Officer advised that detailed discussions had taken place with the Council’s former Chief Conservation Officer and English Heritage in terms of the modern form and detail of the proposed building and it was considered that the proposal addressed the sensitive townscape issues well in terms of form, scale and detail.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that the site was currently in use for car parking and detracted from the street scene.

In response to the view expressed by some Members that the materials should more in keeping with the area, the Principal Planning Officer advised the issue of materials had been considered carefully and it was felt that the high quality finish proposed would help to add visual interest to the street scene.

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as the Local Ward Member, expressed his sympathy for the Bowling Club’s predicament but noted that it was not an issue that the planning process could resolve on behalf of the Club.  He noted concerns regarding parking provision but reminded the Sub-Committee of national planning policy on this issue.  He also commented that there were other contemporary developments in the City where the contrast with the historic environment had worked well.

In order to promote alternative modes of transport, it was suggested that any planning permission granted should include the provision of one cycle per residential unit.

A motion to approve the application failed. The Chief Development Control Officer advised that, in view of local and national guidance and the advice of Officers, refusal reasons relating to private access arrangements and on-site parking provision were unlikely to be defensible on appeal.  A debate about reasons for refusal followed and, after a short intermission, the Sub-Committee agreed the resolution detailed below.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)         The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application as it is considered that the development would not preserve or enhance the character of the area by virtue of the scale, design and inappropriate materials proposed and over-intensive for the site(and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services), provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee; and

(ii)        If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

(Note: The Chief Development Control Officer said that he would refer the application to the Head of Planning Services given the serious risk of costs against the Local Planning Authority.)