Agenda item

Councillors Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Jim Moley, Zoe Patrick, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner, Val Shaw, Chris Wise and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, an additional condition, standard condition LS10 regarding landscaping, should be added to require the maintenance of the landscaping at a specified height.

Dr H Dickinson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, objecting to the proposed development, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding its bulk, design, density, size, parking and proximity to the Green Belt.  He explained that this site was too small for the development proposed and as such would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.  Finally, he referred to the rumble strips, suggesting that they could result in a noise nuisance to residents and neighbours and that other forms of traffic calming should be used.

Mr P Blake, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application, advising that the objections raised concerning bulk, overlooking and parking had been addressed in the Officer’s report.  He explained that there would be six dwellings and not seven as stated by the Parish Council and that the Highways Authority had suggested that only one rumble strip should be provided but the applicant was willing to consider other traffic calming measures.  He explained that the footprint was similar to the footprint already approved, there would be parking to the rear and that the landscape scheme he submitted would provide screening for the car parking area.

The local Member raised no objection to the application, commenting that it was very similar in appearance to the development already approved.  However, he commented that alternative methods of traffic calming should be considered as rumble strips could result in a noise nuisance.

Some Members spoke in support of the application, agreeing that an alternative scheme of traffic calming should be considered; the proposal was not so significantly different to that approved to warrant refusal and providing appropriate materials were used, such as brick and render, the development would have the appearance of a large house which would not be out of keeping in this location.  It was commented that the proposal was not in the Green Belt and that although being adjacent to the Green Belt was a material planning issue, in this case the site was separated from the Green Belt boundary by existing new dwellings.

One Member referred to waste collection, questioning whether a condition could be added requiring the developer to provide waste bins.  In response, the Officers advised that it would not be appropriate to put a condition requiring the provision of waste bins.  It was explained that this sort of requirement would normally be secured through a Section 106 obligation and that the Council currently did not have a policy in place requiring such provisions from small developments of this type.  However, it was suggested that Condition 10 set out in the report should be amended to provide that notwithstanding the detail of the submitted plans, a revised bin and cycle storage arrangement should be agreed and available for use prior to first occupation to ensure ease of access for waste collection vehicles.

In response, to a further question raised, it was explained that it was not necessary to impose a condition to prevent development into the roof space of the new building as flats did not have permitted development rights and that planning permission would be sought for such development.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/95/8 be approved subject to:-

(1)       the conditions set out in the report, with

(a)         Condition 10 being amended as follows:-

“notwithstanding the detail of the submitted plans, revised bin and cycle storage should be agreed and available prior to first occupation”;

(b)       Condition 6 being amended to require that a scheme of access and traffic calming measures should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(2)       additional conditions to address landscaping (standard condition LS10) and external lighting.