Decision details

The proposal before Members was for the formation of a detached one bedroom bungalow with off-street parking and private amenity space within an existing, established residential setting, Dekker Close.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Dilip Patel who considered the proposed development to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site due to a number of recent new builds in the area. The objector also commented on the cramped access/egress arrangements and concluded by commenting that the refuse arrangements would mean residents leaving their rubbish bags on the highway which could in turn hinder access by emergency vehicles.

The applicant’s agent commented that the proposal would have to conform to controlled planning conditions which were in place for the other recently built dwellings. The agent concluded by confirming that the dwelling would be fitted with a sprinkler system, had received no objections from the Highways team and would provide much needed accommodation in the area.

With its agreement Councillor Jason Frost (on behalf of Councillor Dilip Patel) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Frost commented that although he agreed that the proposal was of a good design if permission was agreed then it would lead to an overdevelopment and intensification of a small site. Councillor Frost concluded by commenting that access to the site was through Hamlet Close which itself was quite narrow and did not allow for cars to pass in both directions at the same time.

During the debate Members discussed the access/egress arrangements for the site and possible overdevelopment of the site.

The report recommended that planning permission be agreed, however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site due to inadequately narrow vehicular access causing vehicle conflict and inability to adequately service the site and on the lack of a S106 agreement to secure a contribution for school places.

The vote for the resolution to refuse planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Best voted against the resolution to refuse planning permission.