Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Planning Application Number 20/00542/P - Land At Home Gardens
Minutes:
Officers introduced this report and made the following presentation to Committee:
· This item had been brought back to committee following a deferral at the last meeting
· Since the last meeting, the applicant had produced an access statement confirming access to the site and was shown in green on the site. This had confirmed that a supplementary agreement had ben signed in August 2019 between the applicant and Pegasus Life confirming the right of access
· Details of the site were shown to the Committee
· Planning Officers were satisfied that a Construction Management Plan would be sufficient to address concerns about construction at the site
· An analysis of the parking at the site had indicated that the development was acceptable. There was also an excellent bus route and nearby shops
· Officers had undertaken a further round of consultation from ehich they had obtained a further 14 objections. Officers were satisfied that all required arrangements had been fully met
· No objections had been received from Transport Development Management
· The access route would be via the existing arrangements via the car park
· Since the application was for 60 new units with 20% affordable housing and on a brownfield site, officers believed it was acceptable on amenity, access and heritage grounds. They did not believe that they would be able to defend the existing application on appeal if it were refused by the Committee
The Chair requested that Councillor Hathway’s objection to the application as indicated by his Public Forum Statement be recorded in the minutes.
In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:
· There was no technical reason to oppose the application on the grounds of existing access to the highway. It had also been confirmed that there were established access rights on the land. Any appeal would have a slim chance of being defended
· Officers had provided the information required demonstrating the application boundary and the other land that Harper House had control over
· Officers’ general assessment was that the application was an appropriate scale and that the distance between the properties and the development was sufficient. Whilst a distance of 18.5 metres was not ideal, there were quite frequently distances close to this (14/15 metres)
· The area of car park to the rear of the development was all flat and existing garages run closer than the proposed development. There were existing property boundaries on the site and the development would not impact on these
· Since this was an outline application, the landscaping was not fixed and might be altered at a future date
· The affordable practice note linked to any approved development would require that the site is developed quickly
· An assessment of the site had indicated that waste would be transferred through the rear entrance of the site via the car park. This type of arrangement was typical of what you would expect for this type of development
· Whilst the issue of amenity on the site was an issue that the Committee could take into consideration, there had been no objection from the Transport Team and therefore any objection on these grounds was unlikely to be successful at appeal
Committee members then made the following comments:
· It was disappointing that the developer had not used the deferral to look at some of the concerns previously raised by the Committee such as the access route through the car park. The area during which the construction would happen was too small to properly accommodate all the necessary machinery, such as a lorry and cranes
· The need for housing on the site was clear and the provision of affordable housing was laudable. The Committee had been pressing officers to increase the density of inner city housing as evidenced by the recent motion at Full Council to prioritise more brownfield sites. Since the application seemed complaint with all the required policies and would be difficult to defend on appeal, it should be supported albeit with a heavy heart. However, it would require a robust Construction Management Plan which would need to be thoroughly checked
· The lack of communication between the developer and Pegasus Life for this application was a key concern. Whilst there were no transport issues, the density level and impact on neighbours remained a concern. However, it was a brownfield site which was required and therefore on balance should be supported
· The density of housing was too high for this location. It was frustrating that Carlton House had not become involved in the process even though they could have helped solve the problem. In addition, the access was very tight. The Construction Management Plan would also require careful examination
The Committee gave a strong steer to officers to encourage a greater level of co-operation between residents and the developer. ACTION: Gary Collins/Alex Hawtin
It was moved by Councillor Richard Eddy, seconded by Councillor Lesley Alexander and upon being put to the vote, it was
LOST (3 for , 4 against) – that the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a robust Construction Management Plan to be agreed by the Chair on behalf of the Committee.
It was then moved by Councillor Fabian Breckels, seconded by Councillor Tony Dyer and upon being put to the vote, it was then
RESOLVED (4 for, 3 against) – that the application be refused on the following grounds – the overbearing nature of the development with resulting harmful impacts on neighbouring properties, and loss of amenity due to the unacceptable impact on residents caused by the proposed access arrangements particularly during the construction phase.
Supporting documents: