Agenda item

The proposal before Members was for the outline planning permission for two buildings to provide 13 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom apartments, 4 two bedroom houses and 12 three bedroom houses. The proposal also included associated amenity space and car parking.

The application was brought before the Committee as the application site was Council owned.

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 due to other developments in the area there was now inadequate amenity space for residents to use. The objector also commented that the proposal would create too many dwellings in the area and lead to privacy issues on neighbouring properties. The objector concluded by commenting that trees in the area were natural habitats for bats.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the application had been submitted by the Council to help combat the increasing housing need in the borough. At present there 1,040 people waiting for 2 bedroom properties and 540 waiting for three bedroom properties. The agent concluded by commenting that playing area would be retained and consultation would take place with existing residents to decide on what amenity/play space they would like to see there in the future.

With its agreement Councillors Michael Deon Burton and David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Deon Burton commented that the access and egress arrangements for the proposal were of a cramped nature and emergency vehicles would struggle to enter and leave the site. Councillor Deon Burton also commented regarding parking deficiencies in the area. Councillor Deon Burton also commented about the privacy aspect of the proposal and whether overlooking would take place. Councillor Deon Burton also commented that if there was evidence of bats in the area then it would be unsafe to continue with the works until evidence was provided of how the habitats would be managed. Councillor Deon Burton concluded by commenting on the separate proposal to demolish Napier and New Plymouth Houses and the proposal to replace them with more densely residential properties which would remove much of the green space that was currently there.

Councillor Durant commented that the Council had a dual role in building new houses and protecting existing green spaces. The area that the application was proposed for included high value green space which was considered locally as a village green. Councillor Durant also commented on the proposed re-development on the site of the former Napier and New Plymouth Houses site which would see higher density housing that would have an impact on local services and amenity. Councillor Durant concluded by commenting that the proposal before Members was a zealous over development bearing in mind what was already planned for the neighbouring area.

During the debate Members discussed the levels of house building within the borough and the green nature of the open space which softened the landscape of the area.

Members also discussed the character of the existing neighbouring properties which were not of a flatted design and the proposed demolition of the neighbouring Napier and New Plymouth tower blocks.

Members also discussed the possible loss of parking provision, the access and egress arrangements for the proposal and sought and received clarification of the proposed parking and access arrangements.

Members also sought and received clarification on whether the play area would be provided by the applicant.

The report recommended that planning permission be agreed however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried unanimously it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of:

·         Loss of the community open area which were limited in the vicinity.

·         Traffic congestion on the adjoining road network.

·         Parking (if actually less than 48 spaces could fit on site).

·         Flats and excessive density out of character, cramped.

·         Lack of children’s play space (Section 106).

·         Failure to provide education contribution (Section 106).