Agenda item

(Councillor Matthew Barber had declared a Personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

(Councillor Roger Cox had declared a Personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of two additional documents received from the neighbouring resident, one being an acoustic consultant’s report which criticised the findings of the applicant’s acoustic report and an independent highway consultant’s report.  The Officers explained that in view of these documents only just having been received, it had not been possible to assess the information contained in them.

A representative of the Town Council made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting the application raising concerns regarding the access being too narrow; noise; pollutions; disturbance and the proposal being contrary to planning policy.

Mr D Janata, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to the two additional documents sent to Members of the Committee and emphasised the adverse impact the proposal would have on his property.  He referred to noise levels and explained that it would not be possible for the acoustic barrier to be built.  Finally he explained that Coxwell |Road was very busy and that the junction was not acceptable.

Mr J Bird was due to make a statement in support of the application, but he declined to do so.

Mr A Miles, the applicant’s representative made a statement in support of the application advising that an appeal had been lodged against the Council’s decision to refuse the previous application on this site and that should planning permission be granted that appeal would be withdrawn.  He explained that the noise levels would be below the specified threshold and that conditions should be imposed on any permission to address concerns raised rather than refusal of the application.

Mr D Reynolds made a statement in support of the application commenting that access to the site via Coxwell Road was preferable to any other access and that in approving this application, less properties would be constructed than might otherwise be the case.

One of the local Members commented that the principle of development of this site had already been established.  She explained that the width of the access was similar to others and that emergency and service vehicles would be able to access the site.  She commented that she could see no reason to refuse the application.

Another local Member highlighted that there had been no objection raised by the County Engineer and that the only issue of concern now seems to be noise, which would be addressed by appropriate acoustic measures in terms of a barrier.  He referred to the two additional documents received and commented that it was difficult to make a balanced judgment when presented with convincing, but contradictory evidence.

Other Members spoke in support of the application but considered that a view of the additional documents received should be sought.

It was proposed by Councillor Richard Farrell, seconded by Councillor Jerry Patterson and by 12 votes to 3, with 1 abstention (and 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item) it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair and the Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and a local Member be delegated authority to approve application GFA/4905/6 – X subject to: -

(i)         the conditions set out in the report;

(ii)        the views of the Council’s Assistant Director (Environmental Health) on the noise assessment report received from the neighbour; and

(iii)       the view of the CountyEngineer on the highways report received from the neighbour.