Agenda item

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that eleven additional letters of objection had been received which mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report. Additional points had been raised regarding pre-application advice, a refused application at 63 Orchard Drive and that the proposed development would set a precedent and have an adverse impact on the urban area of special residential character and conservation area]

The Committee considered a full planning application for the erection of one two-storey detached house (three-bedroom) following demolition of existing garage, including retention of one existing two storey detached house (three-bedroom) with reduced curtilage.

Councillor B Hunwicks, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and commented that the site was very cramped, on a dangerous bend and that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area. Councillor B Hunwicks thought that the submitted application was almost identical (minus the garage) to the application submitted in 2016 which had been refused by the Planning Committee at that time. The Ward Councillor urged the Planning Committee to consider refusing the application due to the concerns raised above.

Regarding the pre-application advice that had been provided, the Planning Officer clarified that the siting, design and form of the planning application under consideration by the Committee was different to that submitted in 2016. The main differences noted were the cat slide roof and the separation distance of the properties, which is why the application had been recommended for approval by Officers. The Committee were reminded that any pre-application advice was provided without prejudice and did not pre-empt the decision of the Committee.

On the matter of the location of the site positioned on the bend of a road, the Planning Officer commented that the County Highways Authority had raised no objections. There would be no additional driveway access installed as the two existing crossovers would be utilised.

It was noted that policy DM11 encouraged development of garden land and that the resulting density of the proposed development was less than the indicative density set out in Policy CS10.

A number of Members thought that the proposed development was a good use of the space available and that the density was acceptable.

Some Councillors thought that the lack of a garage would encourage on street parking resulting in highway congestion and safety concerns. It was noted that a number of other properties on this road did not have garages and it was thought that the Controlled Parking Zone would prevent any overflow road parking.

Following a query it was confirmed that the parking provision had been assessed against the current Parking Standards SPD but not against the proposed Parking Standards SPD as this had not yet been agreed or adopted and as such could only be afforded very limited weight.

Following a query, Planning Officers commented that the application was unlikely to set a precedent in the area as there were no similar sites within the vicinity. It was also noted that the application did not fall within, or sit adjacent to a conservation area.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation. The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  A J Boote, I Eastwood, D Harlow, S Hussain L M N Morales and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              Cllrs A Azad and M A Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Present but not voting:      Cllr G G Chrystie.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions and SAMM (TBH SPA) contribution secured by Legal Agreement.