Agenda item

There is no Appendix 1 attached to this agenda

Due to file sizes, appendices 2-8 will be published as supplements

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought planning permission for 26 dwellings with a mix of four 4-bed and twenty-two 5-bed and an offer of 9 affordable housing units delivered on an adjacent site.

The application was presently with the Planning Inspectorate on appeal against non-determination which meant that the local planning authority no longer had any power to determine it. The Officer’s report sought Members’ endorsement of a minded-to position for a refusal decision. Subject to Members’ endorsement, Officers would then have approval to submit a Statement of Case to the Planning Inspectorate recommending the application be dismissed on the grounds specified therein.

The Committee received two representations in objection to the application.

The representations covered the following issues:

      i.         a photograph of Sandy Lane was displayed for Members to see;

    ii.         felt Sandy Lane was unsuitable for construction vehicles to drive up and down;

   iii.         felt access to the site should be from Elizabeth Way;

  iv.         raised concerns regarding car parking if the development went forward noting some residents would not park underground and some property owners would have more than one car and felt that the number of visitors had been underestimated;

    v.         noted objections which raised concerns about housing density.

  vi.         raised concerns about the impact on De Freville Avenue and Sandy Lane if the development went ahead. There would be lots of movements on these streets from bicycles, e-bikes, cargo bikes, pedestrians and cars;

 vii.         noted in the past that a dust bin lorry and fire engine were unable to gain access as the road was partially blocked;

viii.         noted visibility was poor when exiting Sandy Lane into De Freville Avenue;

  ix.         noted the Highways Authority would not adopt Sandy Lane;

    x.         wanted a traffic management order to regulate Sandy Lane as if it was adopted; and

  xi.         asked the Committee and the Planning Inspector to consider the traffic access and safety issues in Sandy Lane.

The Interim Development and Planning Compliance Manager advised that paragraph 10.166 of the Officer’s report be amended to read ‘Delegated authority is granted to Officers to negotiate and complete a s106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in line with the Heads of Terms in paragraph 10.133 of this report in the event that one is required as part of the appeal process’.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to endorse the Officer’s minded to refuse position for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report subject to:

i.               an amendment to reason for refusal 2 to include a reference to air source heat pumps;

ii.             an amendment to reason for refusal 4 to include a reference to gated communities and social cohesion;

iii.            an amendment to reasons for refusal 2 and 4 regarding stepped access;

iv.           the amendment to paragraph 10.166 of the Officer’s report as recommended by the Interim Development and Planning Compliance Manager; and

v.             delegated authority to Officers to draft the amendments detailed above and to include reference to the appropriate NPPF policies.