Agenda item

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and the construction of a 2 no. semi-detached houses to the front and a terrace of 3no. houses to the rear of the site.

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. The application had been referred to the Committee by the ward       Councillor, Mark Weston;

            2. The plans in the supplementary documents were not to scale and were         indicative only;

            3. The application had been amended form its original submission to    reduce the number of houses and parking spaces and to increase             the      amount of garden space and landscaping;

            4. The proposal was for five, two-storey, three bedroom houses. Three within a row at the rear of the site and two on the site of the former bungalow;

5. It was not a conservation area so no consent was required for tree removals;

6. The original proposal was for 6 houses but officers felt this was over-developed and therefore unacceptable and worked with the applicant to address the issues in light of the extreme housing need in the city;

7. Twenty trees were being replaced on the site and a contribution for off-site planting had been agreed and signed. A large hedgerow was proposed which was a positive gain in terms of biodiversity. Tree officers were content with the proposals;

8. In terms of urban design there was a mix of housing styles in the area including estate terrace housing and bungalow;

9. The houses were coach house style so the mass was less severe and therefore was reduced in scale. They were not highly visible from the road;

10.  Residential amenity issues were considered to be acceptable;

11. Highway officers had no objections to the proposals as there was adequate capacity on the local road network;

12. In summary, the density was quite low and was considered an appropriate size development with parking. Officers were therefore satisfied with the proposal believing it to be a good scheme that contributed to the housing needs in the city and recommended it be granted.

          The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. Neighbours had been notified of the revisions and there had been two         rounds of consultation;

2. The removal of trees before a survey was permitted in conservation areas. Officers could then apply a standard replacement scheme. The Head of  Development Management added that a firm stance had been taken from the outset with the introduction of the tree replacement standard policy. All felling that occurred prior to submission of the application was taken into account with replacement planting;

3. There were set requirements regarding Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) in relation to scale and amenity. These did not apply for this development;

4. Councillor Mead acknowledged that there was infill all around the city and this would continue. He added that the area was quite low density and the development was sympathetic in relation to the height of the semi-detached dwellings. There would not be a great deal of difference to traffic levels with five dwellings. He suggested two further conditions – to protect the Yew tree and  the implementation of the aboricultural recommendations on tree species;

5. Councillor Wright stated that it had always been previously argued that sensitive infill sites were a critical part of meeting the city’s housing needs. 50m gardens were a luxury in a 21^st century city. He added that this was a sensitive infill and impacts had been mitigated. He supported the additional conditions proposed;

6. Councillor Sergeant expressed concern regarding the knock on effect and that granting the development would set a precedent for future applications and was informed that there was no strict precedent in planning. There would be similar schemes which could be highlighted for future applications in order to provide a steer for decision making. The cumulative impact was difficult to assess as there would never be a scheme that mitigated every impact. The use of CIL as a contribution from each development mitigated developments on a citywide basis. The Core Strategy was committed to delivering 30,600 new homes by 2026. BCS5 broke this down into areas. Small unidentified sites were to deliver 4200 homes through infill development. In addition the Corporate Strategy set out that 2000 homes a year were to be built by 2020, 800 of those being affordable. It was important to see this application in that context;

7. Councillor Stevens asked whether a Local Development Plan would assist and was informed that this would help but the setting up of a Neighbourhood Development Forum was time consuming and relatively onerous;

8. The Chair stated that he was familiar with the area. Charlton Lane was narrow and a difficult junction and Ardenton Walk was a difficult corner as there were no parking restrictions so people parked on the corner. Tranmere Avenue was also a problem. More development meant more vehicles. He believed five dwellings was too many and they were too close to No. 33. He would vote against based on the number of houses proposed;

9. Councillor Wright proposed that officer recommendation to grant be accepted, in addition to the two additional conditions proposed by Councillor Mead. This was seconded by Councillor Mead.

            On being put to the vote it was:-

     Resolved – (9 for, 2 against) that planning permission be granted subject to      conditions as set out in the report and with two additional conditions as       follows:-

     1. The Yew Tree shall be retained at the front of the site

     2. The recommendations of the arboricultural report be implemented in           full.