Proposed erection of 7 townhouses with associated development.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Milln spoke on behalf of Herefordshire City Council, Mr Irwin, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Eacock, applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the determination of the application was on a fine balance which was demonstrated by the significant number of relevant planning policies relating to the application and the large number of proposed conditions attached to the recommendation. The application site was: set within a conservation area; was of archaeological importance; and close to a scheduled monument and grade 2 listed buildings. A full archaeological survey as required in the conditions demonstrated the importance of the site. The heritage impact assessment undertaken was considered flawed and had been challenged by an independent assessment. It was felt that the proposal was contrary to core strategy policies LD4 and SS6 and national planning policy framework paragraph 219 as the proposal did not protect, conserve or enhance heritage assets nor their setting. The proposed site was set in flood zone 3 and it was concerning that the applicant was challenging the Environment Agencies requirement under the section 106 agreement relating to flood risk infrastructure. Recent examples of flooding from the river Wye militated against applications within flood zones. There was a narrow access to the site which would cause difficulty for construction vehicles and fire tenders would not be able to access the development. Visibility from the access was very poor and located in an area heavily used by cars and pedestrians. Further, the proposed access would result in the loss of parking spaces which would place greater pressure on problematic parking already evident in the local area. Arrangements for the access were in conflict with core strategy policy MT1. An outstanding issue concerned ownership of the site which would need to be resolved before any development took place. The impact of the development on the local environment and the landscaping proposed in mitigation was not felt to be sufficient and therefore contrary to core strategy policy LD3.

The committee debated the application and was divided as to the acceptability of the proposals; the following principal points were raised:

• There was a need for more two-bedroom houses locally;
• The development was in a sustainable location with easy access to the town centre and good walking and cycling access.
• There were concerns regarding the access and the impact on highway safety in the local area;
• There was concern regarding the scale, design, siting and massing on the site. It was felt that this would have an adverse impact on the conservation area. There was no landscaping plan and no landscaping mitigation was proposed with the application. It was not considered that there was a suitable transition from the development site on to the Bishops Meadow adjacent to the application site. The development would pose an adverse impact on the landscape and was considered contrary to core strategy policies LD 1, 2, 3 and 4;
• There were no renewable energy facilities included with the application which was contrary to core strategy policy SD1;
• The design of the buildings was lacking in distinctiveness and posed an adverse impact on other local heritage assets contrary to core strategy policy SS6.
• There was concern that the section 106 agreement remained unsigned. Without the flood risk infrastructure proposed in the section 106 agreement the development site would be put at significant risk from flooding.

The development manager and the highways advisor provided the following clarification:

• there was sufficient width along the access for a fire tender to attend the site.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and councillor Stef Simmons seconded a motion that the application be refused on the following grounds:

• The scale, design, siting and massing on the site would have an adverse impact on the conservation area and landscape. The development would pose an adverse impact on the landscape and was contrary to core strategy policies LD 1, 2, 3 and 4;
• No renewable energy facilities were included with the application which was contrary to core strategy policy SD1;
• The design of the buildings was lacking in distinctiveness and posed an adverse impact on other local heritage assets contrary to core strategy policy SS6.
• The section 106 agreement to require a contribution towards the provision of flood risk infrastructure remained unsigned posing a risk from flooding on the site.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED –

That the application is refused on the following grounds:

• The scale, design, siting and massing on the site will have an adverse impact on the conservation area and landscape. The development will pose an adverse impact on the landscape and is contrary to core strategy policies LD 1, 2, 3 and 4;
• No renewable energy facilities are included with the application, contrary to core strategy policy SD1;
• The design of the buildings is lacking in distinctiveness and poses an adverse impact on other local heritage assets contrary to core strategy policy SS6.
• The section 106 agreement to require a contribution towards the provision of flood risk infrastructure remains unsigned posing a risk from flooding on the site.