Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
59 20/04824/FUL - 130 Queen Ediths Way 10:30am PDF 194 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought
approval for demolition of existing 2 storey house and replacement with three,
two person one bedroom flats and two, three person two bedroom flats in a one
and two storey building.
The Planner
updated her report by referring to updated condition wording on the amendment
sheet:
i.
The recommendation is for approval subject to
conditions.
ii.
Condition 13 – removal of permitted development
rights for gates. This condition has been attached as recommended by Highways.
The Planner/Chair allowed the Objector to present parking stress levels
pictures and his own survey information to the Committee as a late
representation. The Applicant had been made aware of details before Committee.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Strangeways Road:
i.
Referred to previous objections
about the cutting of parking provision.
ii.
Expressed concern regarding the
risk from traffic flow.
iii.
The Developer/Applicant had
submitted a traffic flow survey after being invited to do so in the day time by
council officers. The Developer conducted their survey at night, as set out in
the Officer’s report.
iv.
The Objector took issue with the
Developer’s survey and undertook his own one day before committee. The details
in this contradicted the Developer’s survey.
v.
Requested the development be
refused as it was overdevelopment of the site.
Councillor Page-Croft (Ward Councillor) addressed
the Committee about the application:
i.
Was pleased that a parking survey
had been done, and that parking spaces on Queen Edith Way were not to be
included as they were unsuitable
for on street parking.
ii.
This was a very narrow road with
double decker buses going up and down every 10 minutes.
iii.
There were also young adults
cycling along the road, not always aware that other traffic also used the road
too.
iv.
If cars parked on the road then a
serious accident was likely.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that external letter box
details should be submitted as part of planning conditions.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that the application was a car free development, so should
not add to parking stress in the area (by people living in the development but
parking in neighbouring streets). The Planner suggested an informative drawing
the Applicant’s attention to four car parking spaces being made available for
five properties, car free travel was encouraged and the application should not
add to parking stress in the area.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 4 votes to 1 (with 1 abstention)) to grant the application for planning permission
in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include an additional
conditions that external letter box details should be submitted;
iii.
an informative included on the planning permission,
drawing the Applicant’s attention to four car parking spaces being made
available for five properties, car free travel was encouraged and the
application should not add to parking stress in the area.