Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, Councillors of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

The following disclosures of interests were made:

The Planning Code of Conduct requires Councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence or been approached by an interested party with respect to any planning matter should declare this at the meeting which discusses the matter. Councillors should declare if they have been lobbied at this point in the agenda.

The following lobbying declarations were made by Councillors:- 

Councillors A Belben, Irvine, Malik, P Smith, Sudan and Thomas had been lobbied regarding application CR/2018/0079/FUL.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2019

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/291 (a)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE

The Committee considered report PES/291 (a) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Demolition of the existing church hall for the construction of ground floor retail/community space/apartments with apartments above (total 34 dwellings).

Councillors A Belben, B J Burgess, Jaggard, P C Smith, Stone, Sudan, Tarrant and Thomas declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, whilst also providing the Committee with the following update:

Since the publication of the report, the applicants had agreed in principle to a commuted sum towards affordable housing of not less than £83,195 which was the minimum amount recommended by the independent viability appraisal.  However, the report modelling suggested a contribution sum of up to £202,000 could be delivered and therefore assuming the officer recommendation was endorsed by the Committee and in the event of the lodging of any planning appeal, further discussions and negotiation on the final amount would be needed to secure a final contribution based on the varying assumptions in the report and to agree a contribution in between these two amounts in order for that figure to be incorporated into any S106 agreement.

Mr James Simpson (the Agent for the application) addressed the meeting in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  The Committee was strongly of the view that overall the amount of development proposed would result in overdevelopment of this site due to the scale and massing of the building. Members generally considered that there had been a failure to address: (i) the negative impacts on neighbouring properties and existing site features, and (ii) the inadequacy of the accommodation provided to create a suitable environment and to meet operational needs, and (iii) it was felt there was a greater need to understand the site context.  The Committee voted unanimously that the application be refused.

RESOLVED

Refuse, for the reasons listed in report PES/291 (a).

To consider report PES/291 (c)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/291 (c) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Creation of a new access road between numbers 5 and 7 Southgate Road and construction of three detached dwellings on land to the rear of 5 - 9 Southgate Road (amended description and amended plans submitted).

Councillors A Belben, Jaggard, Stone and Tarrant declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application.

Mr David Eaton, Mr Paul Aabryn and Councillor Pickett (Ward Councillor for Southgate) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Those objections, relating to such issues as increased traffic, parking, pollution and impact on a neighbouring property and street scene, reflected many of the concerns raised on both the consultation regarding the original application and on the re-consultation regarding the revised scheme, as detailed in the report. 

The Committee then considered the application.  The Committee discussed the issues arising, including the comments raised by the speakers.  In response to issues raised the Principal Planning Officer:

·      Considered it unlikely that there would be additional street lighting for only three dwellings as proposed.

·      Indicated that in terms of any impact on air quality, the number of cars using the proposed access road was likely to be very limited and intermittent.

·      Confirmed that he was not aware whether the proposed access road would be named.  This was not a planning matter.

·      Indicated that WSCC Highways Authority would not be adopting the proposed access road.

·      Confirmed that in terms of the width of the road (where it narrowed slightly from 4.2 metres to 3.0 metres between the side elevations of 5 and 7 Southgate Road), and with regard to highway / access matters generally, no objections had been raised by the Highways Authority.

·      Confirmed that there were no windows proposed in any side elevations of the dwellings proposed.

·      Explained that in terms of No. 16C Stonefield Close, although the proposal would have some impact on the side windows of 16C, the typical urban nature of the proposed relationship, the existing obscure glazing and alternative windows to most habitable rooms for light and outlook and, at ground floor level, the existing timber boundary fence, all serve to mitigate the impact.  It was not considered that refusal was justified on the grounds of impact upon No. 16C.

·      Clarified that the required 2 metre distance between any two dwellings was the minimum distance to avoid a terracing impact, rather than address neighbouring amenity.

·      Confirmed that the proposed house at the rear of No. 9 Southgate Road would be 4.5 metres (single storey garage side wall) from No. 16C Stonefield Close at ground floor level.  The main two storey side elevation would be 7.5 metres away from No. 16C.

·      Confirmed that the gardens were of sufficient size for new tree planting to take place within the site.  The Arboricultural Implications Report submitted by the Applicant suggested some beech hedging, which Officers could pursue further on receipt of the respective Landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider report PES/291 (b)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE

The Committee considered report PES/291 (b) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Outline application (access, appearance, layout & scale) for demolition of existing commercial buildings and erection of a 6-storey residential building consisting of 10 no. 1 bed flats and 14 no. 2 bed flats.

Councillors Jaggard, P C Smith, Stone, Sudan, Tarrant and Thomas declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application.

Mr David Ross (the Agent for the application) addressed the meeting in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  Members indicated that whilst the area in and around the application site was in need of development and the principle of residential development was acceptable, they could not support this proposal, due to its prominent siting, size, massing, layout, building footprint and poor design on a constrained site, and its poor relationship with the adjoining sites, and would constitute overdevelopment resulting in a cramped form of scheme which would be out of keeping with, and harmful to, the visual amenities and character of the area.  It was acknowledged that the scheme proposed would unduly restrict the development potential of adjoining land to the north and south. The Committee voted unanimously that the application be refused.

RESOLVED

Refuse, for the reasons listed in report PES/291 (b).

To consider report PES/291 (d)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/291 (d) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

G1 sycamores - remove trees (tag nos. 0867, 0868, 0865, 0866, 0870, 0871, 0872, 0878) to allow remaining trees to develop fully.

Councillors A Belben, Jaggard and Tarrant declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  In response to an issue raised, the Group Manager (Development Management) indicated that in terms of wildlife, sufficient tree cover would remain on the application site, whilst the remaining trees would have space for further growth and would fill out accordingly.

RESOLVED

Consent, subject to the conditions set out in report PES/291 (d).

Any urgent item(s) complying with Section 100(B) of the Local Government Act 1972.