Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting the following:

a.      The application had been referred to committee by the Ward Councillor but the objections had been withdrawn after consultations and proposed resolutions were noted that would address the concerns raised.

b.      The application was for the development of a site that normally had situated on it advertising hoarding; now to be replaced with the erection of 3 no. storey building containing 6 no. flats and associated landscaping.

c.      The presentation together with the report provided a description of the site together with the planning history; illustrated how the application submitted differed from the previous proposal; proposing the reduction in the number of flats from eight to six flats.

d.      The public consultation; noted concerns centred  around residents vehicles increasing the pressure on available spaces along the highway for parking; impact on visibility for motorist entering and exiting Hillside road; challenged the parking survey on the basis that the applicant failed to consult extensively.

e.      The statutory consultees had no objection to the development of the site.

f.       The design plans shared demonstrated how the development would be set back from the main road and would include low growing planting essential to avoid interfering with visibility; Highways management proposal to extend the double yellow lines to prevent unsafe parking.

g.      Officers sought members approval of the application.

Questions for Clarification

h.      Members questioned the impact on resident parking on the movement of pupils being dropped off at Air Balloon School at the start and end of the school day; the level of consultation when a development borders a number of wards; displaced resident parking.

i.       Officer referred members to the report; TDM had raised concerns with the method and results of the initial parking survey and as a result a revised survey had been received.  TDM were satisfied that the surrounding streets would accommodate additional vehicles.  That the details submitted on accident data demonstrated that there were no discernible patterns of accidents that necessitate any changes to conditions around the site in terms of pedestrian access/movements.

j.       Member queried the drawing on the plan that gave an example of the possible landscaping for the garden that appeared over large, and sought assurances that the right shrubs would be introduced when landscaping that would not hinder visibility.

Members Debate

k.      Noted by members that the hoardings would be replaced with a development that was necessary to the provision of much needed housing.

l.       That they were pleased to note that the Ward Councillors concerns had been addressed and would look to officers to ensure the promised sustainability of the development materialised.

m.    Cllr Mead proposed, and Cllr Davies seconded, that members accept officer recommendation to grant this application subject to conditions, noting that the application would have been dealt with under delegated authority if negotiations had been completed prior to hearing date.

n.      When put to the vote:

o.     Resolved (voting 11 to grant; 1 against; 0 abstention) that the application be granted subject to conditions detailed in the report.