Agenda item

Demolition of 3 detached dwellings and redevelopment to provide 24 residential flats (13 x 1 bedroom units; 8 x 2 bedroom units; and 3 x 3 bedroom units), amenity space and associated car parking (Re-consultation following receipt of revised plans including highway works)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - 

The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation subject to the conditions and s106 agreement set out in the report, as amended in the addendum

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of three detached dwellings and redevelopment to provide 24 residential flats, amenity space and associated car parking.

Members noted that this application had been considered on two separate occasions namely on 14 March 2016 and 4 October 2016, and had been subject to a Committee site visit. The application was deferred on 4 October 2016 to allow the applicant to submit further information.

The application was considered on 14 March 2017 and Members resolved to grant the scheme permissions subject to conditions. Subsequent to the Committee meeting a petition from local residents came to light which was not heard due to an oversight in administration. This application therefore came back to the Committee to allow the petitioner an opportunity to speak. 

The petition submitted was in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         the proposed development would cause road safety risks and the location historically had many accidents;

·         sufficient account was not taken of all the properties directly opposite the proposed site which would impact their access needs;

·         questioned how this London distributor road would be able to facilitate three lanes;

·         the road safety audits which took place in March 2014 took place during quiet times;

·         highway safety would be compromised even with the proposed road changes;

·         the scale and bolt of the application would be visually intrusive and the proposed yellow brick will also be visually intrusive;

·         the location of the proposed car parking for this location would cause noise and disturbance levels;

·         concerns were raised about the outside lighting and how it would impact on local residents;  and

·         a suggestion that  a boundary wall whilst work was being carried out on the site. 

The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution the agent spoke and made the following points:

·         the oversight in administration was far reaching beyond planning matters;

·         considerable further work had been undertaken by the applicant as required by the Committee. This work has been reviewed by planning teams in the Council;

·         the scheme was considered to be acceptable and would achieve safe highways for this proposed development;

·         no new issues had arisen that should impact the proposed development; and

·         the latest highways junctions had been tested and the proposed right hand junction was now supported by the Council's highways officer.

Members apologised to residents for hearing the application again and the oversight in administration.

Members noted that rear site did not allow for rear access to the site. Members clarified that the speed surveys carried out and the safety audit demonstrated that the vehicles accorded with the speed limits in the area.

Members noted that there were no delegated facilities for "U" turn for a small development. Members acknowledged that "U" turns were dangerous but accepted that they could be done anywhere. Members clarified that any landscaping issues had been covered as conditions in the planning application.  Members noted that it had considered traffic and all highway information at the last meeting, and all the issues raised by the petitioner were mentioned and raised. There was no new information before the Committee.

Members moved and seconded the officer's recommendation, and upon being put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and two abstentions.

RESOLVED:

The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation subject to the conditions and s106 agreement set out in the report, as amended in the addendum.