Issue - meetings

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update.

It had been brought to officers’ attention that the shape of the location plan did not match the shape of the block plan in so far as reflecting the display boundary, which is on the eastern side, or the right hand side of the image on the screen.

The block plan has since been amended so that it accurately reflects that of the location plan.

Mr. Dale spoke against the application on behalf of himself and the residents of Watford Road.

Mr. Sullivan spoke in support of the application.

A District Councillor and Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

The case officer responded to the points raised by the speakers informing the Committee that she had suggested a parking management plan at Condition 7 (C7). Currently, she had only suggested tracking diagrams be submitted with regards to the three parking spaces to the front, because she and the highways officers were confident regarding the two parking spaces to the back, but that could include those parking spaces as well, should Members wish.

The case officer clarified that the precedent is not a planning material consideration, and in her view this development is only acceptable on its own merits at this time.

There is an existing building and an existing access, and whilst the character is set out in the report, Watford Road is generally of street fronting dwellings with rear gardens.

In this case, because it is an existing building, and that there would be integration of some soft landscaping in place, existing hardstanding is acceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

In response to concerns regarding the access and overlooking, the case officer outlined a comparison between the existing and proposed property layouts, focusing on the rear garden being converted into hardstanding for a dwelling. The officer also explained that there would be no other alterations to the plot layout, with neighbouring dwellings facing similar distances on the neighbouring roads.

The case officer provided clarification to questions arising from the discussion around the potential harm that could be caused by sewage, stating that sewage and drainage are not a material planning consideration.

The officer also reiterated that she is satisfied with the size of the parking spaces, and as mentioned previously, they are currently suggesting a condition for the layout, management and tracking for the parking spaces at the front, and it could also include the ones to the rear, should Members wish for them to be added.

The officer also responded to another point regarding the original approval stating that this building wasn’t going to be for habitation, by confirming that at the time that development was considered acceptable, on the basis of the number of dwellings that were proposed, and that that was an ancillary building that supported the use of the flats that now sit within the semi detached building to the front.

The case officer also confirmed that there is a condition at C6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23