Issue - meetings

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.