Conversion of 4 flats to 3 no. 2-storey mews houses and 1 first floor flat; demolition of outbuildings and development of 2 no. cottages; and extension to existing take away.

Conversion of 4 flats to 3 no. 2-storey mews houses and 1 first floor flat; demolition of outbuildings and development of 2 no. cottages; and extension to existing take away.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that a Flood Risk Assessment had been provided but had not been assessed by the Environment Agency; therefore, the recommendation remained the same as printed in the report.

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

Councillor Mrs. W.U. Attfield, a Local Ward Member, commented on difficulties with traffic movements in the vicinity of the site and felt that the proposal would have detrimental impact on the character of this part of Hereford.  Councillor Attfield noted that the building was quite large already and felt that the additions would make it far too dominant.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, said that traffic movements already posed significant dangers and would be exacerbated by this proposal; particularly given the amount of traffic on Hinton Road, the amount of pedestrian footfall and cycle use in the area, and the positions of the shops and nearby bus stop.  He felt that the proposal was over intensive and planning permission should be refused.

Councillor R. Preece, the other Local Ward Member, drew attention to the Traffic Manager’s concerns and commented on the constraints of the site.

The Development Control Manager advised the Sub-Committee that the Area Engineer felt unable to support refusal on highways and traffic grounds given that the proposal would introduce an element of off street parking.  It was noted, however, that the intensity of the development and the impact on the character and appearance of the area were material planning considerations. 

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Conservation Manager had been consulted about the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings but had also expressed a view that the proposal should not be overly detrimental to the character of the complex.  The Principal Planning Officer also clarified the scale of the proposed development.

A number of Members supported the views of the Local Ward Members.  Comments were made about the Traffic Manager’s views and it was felt that traffic congestion had been underestimated, particularly at peak times.

RESOLVED: That

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason 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.            The proposal due to its cumulative scale and the intensification of development will have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of the area.  As such the development is contrary to Policies ENV14, H3, H12, H14, H21 of the Hereford Local Plan and Policies S1, S2, DR1, DR2, H13, H14 and H17 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

(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: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services.]