Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing garages, relocation of existing sub-station within the site, and redevelopment to provide 8no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted the following:

i.               Highways safety concerns had been addressed.

ii.             Paragraph 8.16 of the officers report contained an error, the building was 50cm, not 30 cm, greater in height than permitted development.

iii.            The applicant confirmed their intention to submit a daylight / sunlight information to demonstrate the impact on 9 Elm Street.

iv.           All windows retained 96% of daylight levels.

v.             The development complied with BRE guidelines as over 90% of sunlight levels were retained.

vi.           Referred to an additional representation from 38 Orchard Street. 

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident:

      i.         Objections raised at the Development Control Forum had been ignored.

    ii.         The development would create a very narrow street.

   iii.         It would not be possible for 2 cars to pass each other on the street, one car would need to reverse into a ‘blind spot’ for the cars to pass each other.

  iv.         Visitor parking would exacerbate existing problems.

    v.         Orchard Street was a popular tourist attraction.

  vi.         Fewer dwellings on the site would be appreciated.

 vii.         The application was a significant overdevelopment of a small site.

viii.         There would be a significant loss of privacy, the report did not mention whether windows would be fixed shut, although it was noted that they would be obscure glazed.

  ix.         There would be a significant sense of enclosure on the outdoor space.

    x.         They were effected by the highest density element of the scheme.

  xi.         Did not object to the principle of development but concerns that had been expressed at the Development Control Forum had not been addressed.

 

Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Porrer (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.               Welcomed the changes which had been made to the application since the Development Control Forum.

ii.             The bike space and visitor cycle space was appreciated.

iii.            Parking on college grounds would be appreciated.

iv.           Expressed concerns regarding the narrow width of the road.

v.             The lack of a passing place was a concern, she was also concerned that this would create a problem for residents and commuters.

vi.           Queried speed controls.

vii.          Noted that bins would be collected from the site and put back by bin operators.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.