Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
60 20/05021/FUL - Land r/o 69 Green End Road 11am PDF 144 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought approval for erection of a two bedroom bungalow.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Shernbourne Court (written statement read by Committee
Manager):
i.
Referred to previously submitted
comments and those of the majority of local residents consulted, who strongly
objected to the proposed planning application.
ii.
This was an inappropriate
development of a garden and the destructive practice of 'garden grabbing'. The
proposed plans ignored the character of the neighbourhood by removing vital
green space. 69 Green End Road had already extended into the garden area and
reduced its garden size. Continuing to develop the vast majority of the garden
into another property was unacceptable.
iii.
Would lead to an increase in
traffic on what is already a very busy cul-de-sac.
iv.
Would cause poor/hazardous access
to Sherbourne Close/Court. With only one off-street parking space, it would
inevitably lead to an increase in on-street parking immediately outside the
property. The 'S' bend on this section of road made it difficult for two cars
to pass without parked vehicles. More vehicles parking here would be hazardous
and lead to poor access to Sherbourne Close/Court, especially for larger
vehicles including ambulances and delivery vans. Ambulances were regularly
called to the care home on Sherbourne Close, so quick and easy access was
crucial.
v.
A further property on this street
would cause the area to become overdeveloped. Sherbourne Close/Court have been
built on and developed over the years and there is simply not the space to cram
in anymore buildings. It would destroy the quieter suburban environment that
attracts residents to live here.
vi.
Would lead to an increase in noise
which would have a negative impact on the peaceful character of the
neighbourhood and on the quality of life of the local residents already living
here.
vii.
It was inconsiderate that the
plans place the building so close to the border of 1 Sherbourne Court rather
than locating it proportionately between the landowner's current property and 1
Sherborne Court.
Mr Rahman (Applicant) addressed the Committee
in support of the application.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation that informatives
be included:
i.
the development should be M4(3) compliant (not
just M4(2));
ii.
the heating system should be adaptable to allow
a change to a non-fossil fuel source.
The amendments were carried
unanimously.
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, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
informatives included on the planning permission in
respect of:
a. the
development should be M4(3)
compliant;
b. the
heating system should be adaptable to allow a change to a non-fossil fuel
source.