Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Committee noted the amendments to conditions 3
and 13 and the additional condition regarding obscured glazing contained in the
Amendment Sheet.
The Committee received two representations
in objection to the application from local residents.
The first representation covered the
following issues:
i.
They had
emailed Committee members in advance of the meeting with their concerns.
ii.
Had met
with Ray Houghton, (the Applicant’s representative) to discuss concerns and
felt that the only suitable option would be to remove Plot 202 or place it
elsewhere on the site as the current position would cause a detrimental and
overbearing impact on the amenity of their property.
iii.
Was
disappointed that a workable solution had not been accepted.
iv.
Plot 202
impacted on the street scene of Martingale Close.
v.
Suggested
the space vacated by Plot 202 could alternatively be used as a wildlife
corridor.
vi.
Asked that
they were afforded the same rights, amenity and enjoyment as every other
resident along the eastern boundary of the site.
vii.
Asked the
Committee to refuse the application due to the unacceptable overbearing impact
of the development on the neighbouring properties.
The second representation covered the
following issues:
i.
The landscape masterplan bore no resemblance to the
original design which had been circulated by the developers.
ii.
The original plans should be retained. No privacy
would be protected by the new plans.
iii.
Noted that tree canopy was important to provide
benefits to residents.
iv.
Asked the Committee not to approve the application
without the improvement of planting in the area.
(Ray Houghton) (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application.
The Committee raised the following concerns
in response to the report.
i.
The effect of Plot 202 on the
residential amenity of existing properties.
ii.
Compliance with fire safety
regulations.
iii.
Requested the removal of Permitted
Development rights for above garage spaces to retain amenity space.
iv.
Queried the landscape condition.
v.
Queried allotment phasing.
vi.
Queried garden size.
vii.
Requested an amendment to
condition 4 so that this referred to EV charging points not ducting.
viii.
Requested an informative regarding
cargo bike parking provision for visitors and residents.
ix.
Expressed concerns about Plot 202
and why this was a marker building.
x.
Expressed concerns regarding Plots
197 and 312.
xi.
Asked for clarification regarding
the clustering requirements.
xii.
Asked for clarification regarding space standards.
xiii.
Asked for the objector’s
photographs to be shown to the Committee.
xiv.
Asked what community facilities
would be available.
xv.
Asked if the internal roads would
be adopted.
xvi.
Asked if there was any provision
for lifetime homes.
In response to Members’ questions the
Principal Planning Officer said the following:
i.
Did not
feel the impact of Plot 202 was at a level to require a review of the
proposals.
ii.
The Fire
Service had not raised any objections to the proposed development and had only
requested fire hydrants.
iii.
The tree
planting met the landscaping requirements and had been approved by the
Landscape Officer.
iv.
Allotment
phasing was set out in the allotment plan which had been approved at the
outline application stage.
v.
There was
no minimum size for gardens set out in the outline permission, most were
approximately 40 square metres although noted there were some smaller units.
vi.
Enhancements
between the proposed and existing properties would be improved through the
arboricultural assessment.
vii.
A cargo
bike informative could be included. She stated she was not recommending the
discharge of condition 49 relating to bicycles.
viii.
The
intention for Plot 202 to be a marker building was a strategy with the Design
Code.
ix.
The units
were under the clustering requirements except for block F1 which had 13 units
and block P1 and Q1 which had 26 units instead of 25 units.
x.
The
internal layout had been assessed to be flexible enough to accommodate the
number of beds proposed per unit.
xi.
The houses
on the eastern elevation were not added late and had been included in the pre-application
discussions. Officers had visited the site and concluded they were happy with
the views.
xii.
A
community facility was being provided which would serve the whole of the Darwin
Green development. It was not located within the site boundary.
xiii.
Confirmed
the internal roads would be constructed to adoptable standards.
xiv.
Confirmed
there was a condition which required 15% of the homes to be accessible and
adaptable.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved by the exercise of one single vote taking together paragraphs 227 and 228
of the Officer recommendation to grant the application for planning permission in
accordance with the Officer recommendations set out in paragraph 227 and to
approve or refuse the partial discharge of the conditions as set out in paragraph
228, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; and
ii.
the amendments contained in the
Amendment Sheet; and
iii.
amendments to the following
conditions with the detailed wording delegated to officers in
consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair:
a.
condition 18 to extend the removal
of Permitted Development rights to integral terraces and to remove Permitted
Development rights from all dwellings along the eastern boundary.
b.
condition 4 to refer to EV charge
points and not ducting, and
iv.
an additional modification
condition:
a.
to remove Plot 202 in its entirety
from the scheme and
b.
the review / redesign of Plots 197
and 312 with the detailed wording being delegated to officers in consultation
with the Chair and Vice-Chair; and
v.
an informative included on the
planning permission in respect of cargo bike parking provision for visitors and
residents.
Supporting documents: