Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of 5 No. dwellinghouses and a block of 4 No. flats with associated vehicular access, parking, landscaping and the formation of an area equipped public open space (revised application)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application.  He referred to the key considerations which were principle of residential development in location, visual and residential amenity and legal undertaking to secure affordable housing and provision of play area/open space.  He advised that the scheme would be taken on by Knightstone Housing Association.  He proposed an additional landscaping condition to agree the boundary treatment between plot 1 & 2 and plot 3 & 5 including soft and hard landscaping to the public open space.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval. 

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and the Area Lead North/East confirmed:

·         Cycle and pedestrian provision on the site could be included as part of the hard landscaping condition;

·         The proposed dwellings and terraced housing were both two storey and largely the same level;

·         The design and external materials of the proposed buildings would be dealt with by condition;

·         It was intended to request the Town Council to take over the play area;

·         Some trees would need to be removed as they were too dangerous to remain in their current position.

Ward Member, Cllr. Jenny Kenton commented that she was unaware until very recently that the application was due to be presented to Committee and had received no consultation.  She advised that the layout was contrary to what she was expecting and she had therefore misinformed a neighbouring resident about the layout of development.  She expressed her concern that neighbouring properties had not been consulted on the application since 2014 and the occupancy of the neighbouring dwellings may have changed.  She would have preferred the application to be deferred to allow further consultation but understood that it could be subject to CIL and may not be viable.

The Area Lead North/East explained the background to the application.  The scheme was properly consulted upon at the time of submission and there had since been no changes to the layout of the development only a slight change to the red line along the southern boundary.  He felt there should be separation between the two sets of houses and that it was reasonable to remove the belt of trees.  Details of the boundary treatment and bunding would be looked at in detail as part of the condition and could be agreed in consultation with the Ward Member.  He commented that a slight repositioning of the terrace to the North was possible and could be an option to be considered.

During the discussion on the item, various comments were made by members included the following:

·         The boundary treatments would need to be looked at carefully and hopefully a solution could be found that the residents find acceptable;

·         Moving everything forward a metre would provide a better solution for the local residents;

·         The play area was desperately needed to meet the needs of the existing neighbours;

·         Concern was expressed that the local residents had not been recently consulted on the application;

·         The application should only be supported if it is 100% affordable;

·         It was questioned whether there was any reason why the trees could not be kept.

The Area Lead North/East reminded members that as the Council was the landowner there was scope to adjust the plots.  A Section 73 application would be submitted if material changes were required. 

Members were advised that the development would be 100% affordable and CIL would not apply.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to defer the application to the next Area West Committee meeting and re-consult on the application given the passage of time and to allow further discussions about the possibility of moving dwellings away from existing properties and retaining existing southern boundary treatments.  On being put to the vote, this was carried by 12 votes in favour and 1 abstention.