[A] Construction of 16 no. residential units, associated carparking and landscaping and [B] Demolition of Carfax House and associated buildings, replacement residential dwellings.

[A] Construction of 16 no. residential units, associated carparking and landscapingand [B] Demolition of Carfax House and associated buildings, replacement residential dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter of objection from Mrs. A. Cook and an additional letter of support from the applicant’s agent.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. A. Cook spoke against the applications and Mr. D. Benbow (applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the applications.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, noted the need to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and expressed a number of concerns about the proposals.  He commented that the existing use of Carfax House for educational purposes, in association with the Hereford College of Technology, meant that there was minimal pedestrian traffic across Aylestone Hill and that this would increase significantly with the proposed residential use of the site.  Therefore, Councillor Wilcox felt that the planning contribution requested by the Traffic Manager of £1500 per unit towards the provision of a pedestrian crossing should be insisted upon.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the development represented an improvement of the existing on site situation through access enhancements and no intensification of vehicle movements.  Therefore, a contribution would be desirable but could not be reasonably insisted upon.  However, the developer had nevertheless volunteered a contribution of £500 per unit towards highway improvements.  The Senior Planning Officer also explained the design approach of the proposals.

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member, issues discussed included: highway safety and the need to secure additional improvements; the importance of this site given its location on a prominent entranceway to the City; the need to preserve some of the interior features of the existing building; the architectural and historic value of the existing building; and the lack of affordable housing.  Some Members felt that the proposed design approach was unsightly and would not enhance this landmark site.

In response to the concerns of Members, the Development Control Manager clarified the highway issues and the approach taken towards contributions (with reference to Circular 05/2005 – Planning obligations) and noted the Conservation Area requirements (with reference to PPG15 – Planning and the historic environment).

Councillor Wilcox felt that the existing amount of on site parking had been overestimated given that some the parking areas were unauthorised, that the proposed new access arrangements would improve highway safety but the implications of increased pedestrian footfall had not been addressed, and he remained unconvinced about the proposed design of the development.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the applications, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below 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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.  Visual impact; and

2.  Fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

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

[Note:            Following the vote on these applications, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]