The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by Way of introduction:
a. The details of the application were outlined.
b. The plans for the development were presented and salient points of the design explained.
c. The scheme would require the demolition of a property for the construction of a 3 storey building containing 7 dwellings.
d. The development was within 50 metres of an urban centre; with access to public transport; the units proposed were appropriate for the area.
e. The design included to the rear 2 storey level in line with the neighbouring property; the buildings local to the development were of various designs; the proposed development incorporated the red brick theme from a number of properties into the design; the design was viewed as contemporary; made good use of the land.
f. One parking space was included in the development for the family unit; cycle storage provision was included in design.
g. The roof incorporated solar panels in its design.
h. Officers recommended approval with conditions.
Questions from Members for Clarification:
i. Parking: explanation was sought on the decision to include just one designated parking area on the development. Members were concerned about possible future contention; impact of residents cars on an already crowded highway.
j. Officer advised that the original design included an area for parking for 5-6 cars with access via a driveway; there was concerned about the negative impact of a car park on neighbouring properties; but the decision was taken to revise the design and replace it with a garden area for the use of all residents; the design included storage and refuge area to prevent any other vehicle to access the site, other than the one vehicle attached to the family unit; there are no parking controls in the area; on street parking was available; the site is sustainable so the decision was made that it was unnecessary to commission a parking survey.
k. Officers were asked to explain the impact of the development on the adjacent property to the rear of the development. The modification at that level reflected the neighbouring 2 storey at the rear; no.25 had an extension that backed onto the development.
l. Glazing of the windows: the condition to include obscure glazing to the west side was not necessary to the East side of the development because the outlook was different.
m. Cllr M Davies: considered it a striking and modern design and was pleased to see it on a small scale development; made good use of the land; had some concern about the parking of resident’s cars on the highway and possible negative impact but was minded to support.
n. Cllr Mead: minded to vote against; considered the design favourable; had grave concerns about the issues arising from additional cars in an area following a decision that a development was sustainable; this had the potential to impact negatively on the area; but on the other hand agreed with the decision not to include a car park in the development.
o. Cllr Clarke: liked the design of the development; considered the designed blended well with existing buildings in the area.
p. Cllr Breckels: expressed concern about the potential future car parking issues; viewed the design as ugly and believed it clashed with surrounding buildings; minded not to support.
q. Cllr Windows: agreed with Cllr Mead about the car parking issues and believed that officers had underestimated the impact of the situation.
r. Cllr Stevens: liked the design and did not consider resident’s parking an issue, as on street parking was available so was minded to support the application.
s. Cllr Eddy moved to support the officer recommended to grant and Cllr Davies seconded
Resolved (7 for and 3 against) that the application be granted as set out in the report.
Cllr Richard Eddy left the meeting at 16:21, there were now 9 members present for the final item.