Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The Committee
received a Section 73 application.
The application
sought approval to vary condition 13 of Application 07/1223/REM to allow
amendments to refuse storage, cycle storage, landscaping
and block positions.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following:
· Mr Fordham.
· Dr Meredith.
· Dr Vaughan.
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to the representation made to Planning
Committee in 2002. The points raised remain unchanged:
· Did not object to
developing the site per se.
· Objected to
overshadowing of garden.
ii.
Suggested the 3 storey building be moved so it
overshadowed the bike shed instead neighbour’s back garden.
iii.
Concern over proposed reduction of the amount of
affordable housing on site.
iv.
Queried lawfulness of commencing work on site and
if any meaningful work has occurred, as trenches that had been dug had now been
filled in and covered over.
v.
Took issue with:
· Details in the
Officer’s report that said there would only be 3 windows, 23 were listed in the
design.
· On site
sub-station being recommended for approval despite resident’s opposition.
Mr Reynolds (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application.
Cllr Herbert (Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application.
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
This site had been on the Planning Committee’s
radar for over 10 years. It had been derelict since 2005 when the building on
it was demolished.
ii.
Expressed concern regarding:
· Lack of green
space in the design.
· “Rushed” design of
replacement buildings, cycle parking and waste arrangements.
· The enforcement
notice issued against Western Homes (Applicants) for undertaking work on site without
planning permission (this was against the law). This was reported in the local
media. Queried if Western Homes could be trusted to deliver against permitted
development conditions.
· Waste management
conditions set out on P195 of the Officer’s report were unsafe. Also, locating
bin stores away from people’s homes could lead to problems in future.
· Cycle storage
racks were unsuitable.
· Courtyards removed
people’s green spaces.
· Took issue with
the over ground (as opposed to underground) sub-station design.
iii.
Was awaiting Legal Advisor’s comments on Western
Homes undertaking work on site without planning permission.
The Principal Planning Officer supplemented his introduction by stating:
i.
Meaningful work had commenced on the Rustat Road site.
ii.
Dr Wittorff’s representation
had been received after the submission deadline, so was tabled for Councillor’s
information.
iii.
Dr Meredith’s representation had not been published
pre-committee as it needed to be redacted pre-publication (this had been
delayed as the representation was hand delivered), but was referred to in his
report.
Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that an informative be included to accommodate
larger bikes in cycle storage areas.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers with the following additional
informative:
The applicant is advised that information submitted to satisfy Condition
14 should recognize that some residents are likely to use cycles with trailers,
‘box-bikes’, tricycles and other large cycles, and should make appropriate
space available for such machines.