Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from City Councillor Matthews and SCDC
Councillor Bygott, City Councillor Porrer and SCDC Councillor Howell attended
as alternates. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application
(07/0003/NMA1) for a non-material amendment to the Darwin Green outline consent
and a reserved matters application (19/1056/REM) for the Darwin Green 1
development for parcel ‘BDW2’. The Committee
noted the amendments presented in the Amendment Sheet. The
Committee received representations in objection to the application from two local
residents. The
first representation covered the following issues:
i.
Asked the
Committee to note that almost all the residents of Woodlark Road opposed the
application.
ii.
Did not
resist development but this site would be over developed. 40% of homes did not meet the National Space
Standards and 33.8% of the affordable homes did not meet this standard.
iii.
The density of homes was higher than authorized by the outline planning
permission.
iv.
The application did not meet condition 8 of the outline planning permission.
v.
The case officer had stated the average length of a garden for a Barrett
David Wilson (BDW) home would be 9.5m, however in many cases gardens would be
only 6 to 7m.
vi.
The reduced garden length would impact Grosvenor Court and 1 Hoadly
Road. vii.
The developer had stated publicly the buildings would be 18m away from
Grosvenor Court, but there was a distance 15.5m for one of the buildings which
would have a significant impact on residential amenity. Requested the Committee
considered a condition to ensure a distance of 18m. viii.
Because the side elevation to 1 Hoadly Road was 9m the Committee were
asked to ensure similar condition of 18m be applied to this plot there would be
a significant impact on daylight / sunlight.
ix.
Requested that permitted development rights be removed for those
buildings boarding Woodlark Road. The
second representation covered the following issues: i.
Residents who adjoined the site
would have their local amenity significantly impacted by the scheme due to its
proximity. ii.
Throughout the planning process
residents’ expectations had been poorly managed by the developer. The current
plans differed considerably to the outline planning artist’s impressions and
answers given at public meetings with the goal posts moving. iii.
In the outline planning approval,
there was room for 20m gardens but now had been advised it was not possible. No
good reason had been given for this change. iv.
The pavilion was going to be a
residential unit and a focal point of the development, but it had now been put
up for sale. v.
A new hedge is to be
planted alongside the Woodlark Road boundary. The plans now show only
repairs to the existing Woodlark Road hedge, in the case of Grosvenor
Court it would be in the BDW2 gardens and in other areas there would be gaps. This
did nothing to increase this important wildlife corridor and was not supportive
of the Council’s policy of increasing biodiversity. vi.
Requested the Committee protect the Council’s biodiversity policy
and safeguard residents from the risk of flooding by making the following
points are the subject of conditions of any planning approval. 1. Work on ... view the full minutes text for item 20/21/JDCC |
|||||||
NIAB site Minutes: The Committee ran out of time to consider the pre-application developer briefing and it was anticipated that the briefing would be deferred until the January 2021 meeting. |