Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from City Councillor Matthews and SCDC Councillor Bygott, City Councillor Porrer and SCDC Councillor Howell attended as alternates.

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

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.