Issue - meetings

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.