Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
24 14/1792/FUL Glebe 3 PDF 224 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee noted revised conditions on the amendment
sheet published pre-committee, and the revised amendment sheet tabled 17 June
2015.
The Committee received representations in
objection to the application from the following:
· Ms Moulding.
· Mr Taylor.
The representations covered the following
issues:
i.
Specific
concerns regarding:
· Loss of view as a result of the development.
· Overshadowing.
· Overlooking.
· Loss of privacy.
· Safety concerns over the access road. This is a
private road that would be turned into a public access for pedestrians, bikes and
vehicles. It would be unsuitable for this purpose as it is too narrow and lacks
street lighting.
· Took issue with the perceived lack of
consultation by the County Council over the proposal to adopt the access road,
which currently serves one dwelling, and turn it into a more formal link for
pedestrians and cyclists.
· Height of the development.
ii.
Suggested the design would be more in-keeping with the character of the
area if it were 2 storey not 3.
iii.
Detached houses that had been bought by existing residents would now
become part of an estate. Originally they had been deliberately bought as
standalone dwellings located away from neighbours.
Mr Hunt (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application.
The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report.
i.
Welcomed the design of the
application, it tried to fit in with neighbours and provided green spaces.
ii.
A single track access road was
acceptable in principle. This was in line with other developments.
In response to Members’ questions the
Principal Planner and New Neighbourhoods Development Manager said the following:
i.
Officers
considered the (current) private access road would be suitable for use as a
public access for pedestrians, bikes and motor vehicles. (Reference paragraph
8.9 on P21 of the Officer’s report). There was enough room for a car and a bike
to pass.
ii.
The map of
the application included in the Officer’s report omitted access links that
would be in place. This was an error.
iii.
The access
road was not adopted by the Highways Authority at present. The County Council
was the land owner of the main site. Glebe Farm had access rights over this.
iv.
The Police
Secured by Design advisor suggested that the access route would provide
unnecessary permeability (ie access), other Officers had supported the access
road (reference paragraph 8.10 on P21 of the Officer’s report), so the
advantages of the road were considered to outweigh the disadvantages.
v.
The
purpose of s106 funding was to provide appropriate access for the proposed new
residential units, not to address historic problems.
vi.
The
wording in condition 28 (amendment sheet) regarding the need for refuse bins to
be in place before buildings go up appeared to require further refinement. Final
wording would be confirmed in future.
vii.
Solar
panels could be fixed to ‘green roofs’ on the proposed units.
viii.
Overshadowing
of Glebe Farm House was not significant. It would vary during the year, being
more noticeable March to September; in comparison to January to March then
September to December.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 13
votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the
officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and
subject to the amended conditions recommended by the officers.