Agenda item

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the County Engineer had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding the visibility at the access with Naldertown.

Furthermore, an additional letter of objection had been received raising concerns regarding impact of development on the foundations of neighbouring dwellings; impact of the character and appearance of the area; traffic; density; design and appearance; loss of open space and visibility at the access.

Also a further submission had been received from the applicant advising that the density accorded with Local Plan policies and with PPG3; the design of the hips and roof detailing related to neighbouring properties and were in keeping with existing features.

Finally, the Committee was advised a one letter of support had been received.

Mr B Tapscott and Dr James Broughton each made a statement objecting to the application raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report.  They specifically raised concern regarding traffic calming measures at the access and the ability for vehicles to pass namely the vehicle and trailer used by St John’s Ambulance; increased traffic; displaced car parking and impact on traffic speed.  It was explained that the residents had maintained the area of open space for years and the area had been used for recreation.  It was commented that the unique character of the open space was more desirable than parking.  Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding distances; density; proximity to neighbouring properties; height; loss of light and outlook; visual impact; drainage and flooding.

Neil Boddington the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the considerable amount of negotiations and reported that the proposal had been redesigned having regard to the comments raised.  He suggested that the altered road layout would improve road safety; off street parking would be removed; the St John’s Ambulance would be able to manoeuvre its vehicles due to parked cars being removed along Naldertown; there would be a better flow of traffic; there would be no damage to the foundations of existing houses; there would be no loss of light and the surface of the parking area would be in keeping.

One of the local Members referred to the level of local objection to this proposal and commented that it was contrary to Local Plan Policy H9 in that it would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.  She explained that originally the area had been intended for the elderly.  She raised concerns regarding the proposal in terms of its height; overlooking; dominance; loss of the open space; the proposal being out of keeping in terms of design; lack of infrastructure for additional residents; the inability of vehicles to manoeuvre at the access road; visibility at the access; parking; proximity of the parking to habitable rooms of existing houses; size; drainage including concerns regarding damage to pipes during construction; over development and unneighbourliness.  She referred to the slide explaining that there were a number of bungalows nearby.  Finally, she confirmed that the open space area had been maintained for years by the residents who valued it as an important amenity which they enjoyed.

Another local Member commented that she disagreed that the proposal amounted to over development but did consider that the design was inappropriate in this location.  She suggested the buildings were too high and as such the application should be refused on design grounds.  She suggested that a proposal reduced in height, with fewer units of accommodation and in a revised style might be acceptable on the area of shrub land.

One Member whilst agreeing that affordable accommodation was needed expressed concern regarding the impact of this proposal on the character of the area. He noted that the green area was a pleasant amenity in this location which contributed to its overall character.  Finally, he agreed that the proposal was too high and the density should be reduced.

Some Members spoke against the application making the following points: -

·         It was considered that St John’s Ambulance should be formally consulted in terms of the ability of its vehicles to manoeuvre along Naldertown.

·         It was commented that the drainage system might not be able to cope and that new obligations in this regard should not be placed on existing residents.  The Officers noted this matter commenting that this would be covered by a proposed condition.

·         It was noted that the development was of a scale which would not warrant a financial contribution towards highway improvements. 

·         In view of the concerns expressed regarding parking in front of habitable rooms it was suggested that a parking scheme should be put place. 

·         The green area formed an important open space and was a valuable amenity to local people. Local residents would not be compensated for its loss.

·         The green area should be retained as it contributed to the character of the area.

·         The density was too great for this area. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following points: -

·         There was no material planning reason to refuse the application.

·         A slab level condition should be included should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

·         There were properties nearby of similar design with hipped roofs.

·         43 dwellings per hectare was not unacceptable and could not be defended as a reason for refusal.

·         There was a mix of development in this area and therefore it would be difficult to sustain objections in terms of height and design.

·         Parking was sufficient for the needs of the development.

One of the local Members questioned whether there were any rules regarding building on land which had been used for an informal use such as open space.  The Officers responded that the green area of land in this case was in the ownership of the applicant and he could do with it what he liked subject to appropriate planning permissions.  Another Member commented that notwithstanding this, the land provided an important amenity area.  The Officers responded that it was appropriate for the Committee to take that into account.  However, the weight to be attached to that needed to be considered.  It was commented that some informal open space was identified in the Local Plan.  This site was not one of those and the parking was being offered as a benefit to local residents as it was not required for the development. On seeking a view from Members, there voted 7 in favour of retaining the area as open space and 8 in favour of parking.

One Member commented on the design suggesting that chimneys should be included, although this was not supported.  However, it was agreed that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, revised details of fenestrations and dormers should be sought.

By 9 votes to 8 it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and /or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application WAN/19489-X subject to the following: -

(1)        Conditions relating to material samples; removal of permitted development rights; obscure glazing on flank windows; drainage details; hard and soft landscaping; boundary treatment; highway conditions to address visibility at the access as recommended by the County Engineer; slab levels; the submission of a parking scheme for the proposed new dwellings and revised details of fenestration and dormers.

(2)        The Officers having regard to any comments made by St John’s Ambulance on the proposal and specifically whether the changes proposed to the highway will allow sufficient space for their vehicles and trailer and to pass.