New residential development comprising 2 no. 4 bed houses and one no. 2 bed house plus new highway access.

New residential development comprising 2 no. 4 bed houses and one no. 2 bed house plus new highway access.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that, following the Sub-Committee’s site visit, the applicant’s agent had suggested reductions to the height of the proposed houses.

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

Councillor R.I. Matthews, the Local Ward Member, acknowledged that local residents had genuine concerns about the proposal and noted that the site fell outside the defined settlement boundary for Hereford City.  He commented that the driveway was too narrow and would be detrimental to highway safety, particularly given that the adjacent pedestrian footway which was heavily used.  He felt that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would have a damaging effect on the rural character of the area.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that, whilst the site fell outside the defined settlement boundary for Hereford City and could be considered technically as open countryside, it was within the defined linear settlement zone for Kings Acre Road.  He also indicated the distances between the proposed and existing properties.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews felt unable to support the development as it represented an unacceptable form of backland development that could potentially set a precedent for other undesirable developments in the area.

Councillor P.J. Edwards noted problems with surface water drainage from fields in the area and commented that any development would need to mitigate the associated risks.

A number of Members concurred with the Local Ward Member that the access arrangements could be hazardous to other road users and pedestrians, particularly as there would not be room for vehicles to pass on the driveway.

In response to a question about the recommendation of approval by officers, the Development Control Manager noted that there were policy tensions in that the site fell outside of the settlement boundary but could be considered previously developed land and, therefore, redevelopment would be in accordance with PPG3.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Development Control Manager) provided that the Development Control Manager does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.      The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents.

2.      The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would have a damaging effect on the rural character of the area.

3.      The access arrangements would be detrimental to highway safety.

(ii)     If the Development Control Manager 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: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the application to the Planning Committee.]