Agenda item

(Councillors Matthew Barber and Angela Lawrence both declared personal interests in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.)  

The Planning Officer reported that 14 additional letters of objection had been received since the agenda had been published.  These reiterated objections covered in the report.  The Town Council had not formally responded to the application but it was understood that an objection was to be raised.  The Officer also suggested an additional condition, requiring a contaminated land survey (ref. MC34). 

Councillor Martin Smith made a statement, on behalf of the Town Council, objecting to the application believing that the proposed development was even larger than the previous application.  The grass verge would be destroyed to provide car parking and the application was contrary to policy DC1 of the adopted Local Plan. 

Mr Haggett made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of the residents of Galley Field and Norman Avenue.  He raised matters covered in the report but highlighted: that the development would be totally alien to other properties in Galley Field and would be incongruous and out of keeping with the area; the attractive design of the area would be destroyed by this proposal; it would be contrary to the restrictions set out in the deeds of the Galley Field properties; it would be disproportionate to other houses in the area, overpowering neighbouring bungalows and causing a sandwich effect; and the access to the proposed development was in a dangerous location. 

Mrs S Watkins, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application, pointing out that there was room on the site for the development and most of the properties in Galley Field were houses.  The development would provide a home for her family.  The design had been changed to fit in with the area and was consistent with no.5 Galley Field.  The effect on no.3 had been reduced and the proposal was in line with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 and Local Plan policy D3 by being in a sustainable location. 

The Committee's Legal Advisor reported that the objection relating to the title deeds was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account. 

The Local Member supported applications that provided affordable housing but did not consider that this one was in a suitable location.  She considered that it would be overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the surrounding area. 

The Committee noted that no objection had been received from the County Engineer over parking matters or the loss of the highway verge to provide vehicular access.  Therefore, Members found no reason to refuse the application but asked that an additional condition was attached requiring a permeable surface for the driveway. 

RESOLVED  (by 8 votes to 7)

that application ABG/20044/1 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional conditions:

(i)         to survey the site for contamination (ref. MC34); and

(ii)        to require a permeable surface for the driveway.