Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
92 19/0560/FUL - Land rear of 5-17 New Square PDF 356 KB
Minutes:
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.