Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing development and the erection of 12no. dwellings together with access, car parking, bin and bike stores, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following (written statements read by the Committee Manager):

·       Resident of 5 Cheney Way.

·       Resident of 9 Cheney Way.

The representations covered the following issues:

      i.          5 Cheney Way: “My statement and the concerns are the same as I expressed previously: Currently we have back garden door access to our house through the public path at the back of our garden. We use this back door access to have access to services such as building and garden works. It seems that the current public path will be closed, and we will lose the back garden door access to our house. I am very concerned about this loss of backdoor access. I would like to be assured as how the new council house proposal is going to provide the current back door access to our house.”

     ii.          9 Cheney Way:

a.    “As one of about 6 houses in Cheney Way most affected by the new development, in addition to my written submission of a few months ago, I would like to stress that since the new houses will be slightly higher than those behind on Cheney Way, there will be an issue of overlooking.

b.    These are clearly chalet style houses with two storeys - these would be more acceptable to the most affected residents of Cheney Way. Visually they would blend in better with existing buildings around the area.

c.    They could still be built to modern standards of insulation etc. One further important point I would like to make is - if, as has been stated, there are no plans to build further back onto the ‘ Five Trees ‘ area - why build a road through the houses? This could easily become an access road for further development.”

Mr Digby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer's recommendation that an informative be added to encourage the use of biodiverse roof on the bike sheds.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that an informative be added to encourage the applicant to consider, if possible, the re-use of the existing bollards on the footpath to the front of the site  which are to be removed as part of development at the site entrance onto open space.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) 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 prior completion of an Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

     ii.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

   iii.          informatives (with delegated authority for officers to draft these in consultation with Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes) to be included on the planning permission to encourage the Applicant to:

a.    use biodiverse roof on the bike sheds;

b.    re-use the bollards on footpath (that will be removed as part of development) at the site entrance onto open space.

Councillor Dryden did not participate in the discussion or decision making for this item.