Issue - meetings

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that four additional letters of representation had been received, including one from Knaphlil Residents Association. These mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report and also include comments on loss of privacy and loss of light.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Paul Watson attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ray Freeland spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a four storey building including accommodation in the roof space, comprising nine self-contained flats and two commercial units and associated parking, landscaping, bin and cycle storage following demolition of existing building.

Councillor D Harlow, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application and commented that her priority as Housing Portfolio Holder was to ensure new homes were built. The Ward Councillor felt that the applicant had done enough to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and in the circumstances asked the Committee to find a way to approve the application.

Some Members agreed that development and regeneration of the site was needed, however they were concerned by the history of the site and the consistent planning application refusals. Concerns remained about the bulk, massing and scale on the site and the dominant impact the building would have as you approached from the bottom of the hill. The Planning Officer commented that the reasons of the previous refusal needed to be overcome; it was their opinion that although some changes had been made, not enough had been done to address the main reason for refusal which was due to scale, mass, bulk and design.

Following a query from a Member on neighbour privacy, the Planning Officer explained that this had been detailed on page 23 of the report and it was noted that the planning policies had all been complied with in this respect and that the impact would be considered acceptable.

Some Councillors were concerned regarding the lack of Legal Agreement and were minded to refuse.

Councillor N Martin commented that this building was in disrepair and that this site needed to be developed. The Councillor disagreed that the application was prominent, dominant and incongruous and suggested that it would actually fit in well when you considered the street scene as a whole. Councillor N Martin did comment that she had some sympathy for those residents in Highclere Road & Highclere Gardens regarding parking however this application did meet the parking standards and therefore this was not grounds on which it could be refused. It was noted that no statutory consultees had objected to the application. Councillor N Martin proposed, and Councillor S Dorsett duly seconded that the application be approved.

Debate continued.

Members agreed that no application was perfect, however this one did breach CS21 and CS24 of the Core Strategy; some Members suggested that the Committee should not compromise and should strive for a development that was less  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6