Agenda item

            The case officer outlined the contents of the report and informed the Committee that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda of the meeting of 11th April for the consideration of a late objection which had been received.  He outlined to the Committee that, in light of that objection and an additional representation which had been received in the interim, all representations had now been fully considered in the assessment within the amended report.  He outlined that the statutory consultees had been contacted once again and had expressed no objections to the proposed development at the site.

            The case officer outlined that the application sought planning approval for the demolition of existing semi-detached dwellings and the construction of 5 no. dwellings comprising of 3 no. detached and 2 no. semi-detached houses with associated car parking and landscaping.

            The Committee was advised that the proposal had been assessed against the SPPS, Planning Policy Statements (PPS) 3, 7 and the Addendum to PPS 7, and supplementary guidance set out in Creating Places, DCAN 8 and Parking Standards.

            He explained that, after assessment, the proposal was considered acceptable and had been recommended for approval.

            The Committee received representations from Mrs. Van den Berg and Mr. Lambkin.  They outlined a range of objections to the proposal, including:

·        whether a site visit had been carried out;

·        the case report having omitted objections relating to the loss and invasion of privacy of the private amenity space;

·        that a 25ft open aspect would be left as a result of the demolition of the garage;

·        that the proposed roundabout would encourage traffic onto privately owned land;

·        that the areas in common should be clearly demarcated;

·        evidence of previously blocked sewers from statutory agencies;

·        the previous presence of Japanese Knotweed on the site of no. 446 and concerns that construction work would disturb the ground; and

·        issues regarding the applicant not having submitted the correct certificate and not having full land ownership. 

            The objectors requested that, if approval was granted, conditions be imposed on the applicant to ensure replacement screening be provided and that the choice of surface abutting the boundary along the passage in common be agreed between the applicant and the neighbouring property owner.

            The Chairperson thanked the residents for their presentation and they retired from the meeting.

            In response, the case officer clarified a number of the issues which had been raised.  He explained that, although it was not a requirement from officers, the developer had stated that he was prepared to use the vacant plot as the access point for construction traffic, and that he would discuss this with the agent before the decision was issued.  He confirmed to the Members that the correct certificate had now been produced by the applicant and that due process had been followed. 

            The Committee approved the application, in line with the recommendation outlined in the case officer’s report, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Place to agree and finalise the wording of the planning conditions.