Agenda item

Councillors Mathew Barber, Terry Cox, Mary de Vere and Tony de Vere had each declared a personal interest in this items and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Jim Moley had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.  However, in accordance with paragraph 5.2.6 of the Local Code of Good Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters he refrained from voting on the application.

The Officers clarified that there had been 27 letters of representations including a letter from one of the local Member.

Mr M Holt made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding detrimental impact;  the proposal changing the character and appearance of the area which was predominantly Edwardian and Victorian; other proposals coming forward for development in this area as some residents of larger plots had been approached by developers; traffic movement and pedestrian safety (a concern shared by many including the Head Teacher of King Alfred’s School); size; scale; density; the extent f the footprint; narrowness of the plot and the resultant necessity to squeeze the apartments to the back of the site; removal of trees to allow for parking; the second floor being unnecessary. Finally, he suggested that six apartments might be acceptable.

Mr F Dixon on behalf of the applicant made a statement in support of the application referring Member’s attention to the report commenting that the proposal complied with PPG3, PPS1, the Local Plan and Emerging Local Plan.  He referred to a similar application opposite and suggested that the objections raised did not refer to material planning considerations. He commented that in terms of traffic, the County Engineer had no objection; the vision splay would be improved and a passing bay would be provided.  Furthermore, whilst he agreed that the character of an area could change as was the case with all development, such a change would not be harmful in this case.

One of the local Members raised concerns regarding the cumulative affect of this type of development; design and density.  He suggested that mock Tudor was not the predominant design in this road.

One Member commented that there was a diversity of house styles and designs in this area which were predominantly Victorian.  She suggested that the proposal could have been more imaginative although she raised no objection to the scheme as presented.

Another Member referred to Coopers Lane which was a narrow un-adopted road. She commented on the need to retain such accesses which she suggested encouraged people to walk or cycle rather than use their cars.

Other Members supported the application welcoming the retention of open space and considering that there were no reasons to refuse the application.

By 16 votes to nil, with Councillor Jim Moley abstaining it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application WAN/4741/1 subject to conditions to include materials, access improvements; landscaping; the stopping up of the existing vehicular access; drainage; tree protection during construction; boundary treatment; slab levels and car parking.