Amendment to application CE2005/3706/RM - Replacement of two storey 'Hereford' house type with three storey 'Middleham' house type (Retrospective).

Amendment to application CE2005/3706/RM - Replacement of two storey 'Hereford' house type with three storey 'Middleham' house type (Retrospective).

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of two additional letters of objection.

Councillor R. Preece, a Local Ward Member, felt that the replacement of a two storey house type with a three storey house type was unacceptable and felt it regrettable that this application was retrospective.  He said that the application should be refused due to its overbearing impact on adjoining properties and its impact on residential amenity.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the development was over intensive.  He commented on the significant traffic congestion problems on the local road network and felt that further development would exacerbate this situation.  He expressed strong concerns about the retrospective nature of the application and was disappointed that the developer had not ceased work on the building given that it was a clear breach of the planning permission granted.  He also drew attention to the objections of Hereford City Council.  He commented that the Local Ward Members disagreed with the assertion in the report that ‘…the revised design of the dwelling will not appear unduly prominent in the locality or within the street scene…’ (paragraph 6.2) but concurred that residents would ‘…have the feeling that their privacy is being invaded by existing and proposed dwellings…’ (paragraph 6.5).

Some Members expressed dismay at the retrospective nature of the application, commented on the road congestion that was likely to result from development sites in the area, and felt that the development had a detrimental impact on the locality.  A number of reasons for refusal were suggested; detailed in the resolution below.

Counter arguments were also made having regard to the window-to-window relationships, the lack of objection from the Traffic Manager and the similarity of the development to the adjacent buildings which had the benefit of planning permission.

A number of Members emphasised the impact of the three storey building on the street scene and maintained that it was an unacceptable form of development.  In response, the Development Control Manager did not feel it likely that the arguments with regard to overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact could be sustained on appeal but acknowledged that the perceived impact on the street scene was also a material planning consideration in this instance.

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.            Overbearing impact

2.            Impact on residential amenity

3.            Over intensive development

4.            Impact on the street scene

(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 refer the application to the Head of Planning Services as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged.]