Agenda item

2 x two storey, 4-bed, semi-detached dwellings with habitable roofspace and 2 x detached garages with associated parking and amenity space and the installation of bin stores and a vehicular crossover to Ashurst Close (Resubmission).

Recommendation :

2 x two storey, 4-bed, semi-detached dwellings with habitable roofspace and 2 x detached garages with associated parking and amenity space and the installation of bin stores and a vehicular crossover to Ashurst Close (Resubmission)

Officers introduced the report setting out details of the application and amendments contained on the addendum sheet. Officers advised the Committee that the application was identical to that considered on appeal by a Planning Inspector.  The only reason that the application was dismissed by the Planning Inspector was in relation to the impact the development would have on the education facilities in the locality.

In accordance with the constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting.  The agent/applicant was present at the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         There had been a number of applications submitted on this site over the years.

·         All previous applications had been refused by the Council and dismissed on appeal.

·          The latest appeal was only dismissed in relation to financial matters.

·         Residents felt justified in requesting that the application again be refused in spite of the financial implication this may bring.

·         If the views of the Council and residents do not prevail what is the point of Preservation Orders and Areas of Special Local Character.

·         The tree report undertaken by residents had been disregarded by the Planning Inspector.

·         There were existing parking pressures in the area and concern over access for emergency vehicles. This was exacerbated by school traffic at the junction of Ashurst Close/Hallowell Road and Hallowell Road/Green Lane.

·         Ashurst Close was narrow and with parking along one side of the road it was effectively one way street.

A Member asked whether a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be attached to this permission.

Officers explained that the comments made by the Planning Inspectorate who considered the appeal felt that the proposal was acceptable except for the materially harmful effect the proposal would have on the Education facilities in the locality.  As the Council had adopted its own CIL, there was no longer a separate requirement for educational contributions on residential developments such as this.

In answer to an issue raised as to how refuse vehicles would access the site officers advised that it would be no different to what currently occurs and was an issue that the Inspector considered acceptable.

In answer to an issue raised in relation to the parking, officers advised that there was a condition on the addendum sheet requiring the parking to be allocated and designated. The parking was the maximum permitted.

The Committee asked whether a condition had been attached to require the installation of wheel washers on site during construction.  Officers suggested that this be added as an informative.  This was agreed by the Committee.

The recommendation for approval with an additional informative added was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be Approved, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report and the addendum circulated at the meeting and an informative added in relation to a request for wheel washers being provided on site.