Agenda item

The report before members detailed an application for the erection of two semi-detached bungalows to the rear of 57 Brookdale Avenue.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Ron Ower on the grounds of access issues, size of the dwellings and the impact the dwellings would have on existing properties in Brookdale Avenue.

Members were advised that one late letter of representation had been received that claimed the application site was in a state of neglect but was not derelict.

Officers advised of the following amendments to the report:

Page 33 – the description of the proposal should read 2 semi-detached houses, not two detached houses;

Paragraph 2.8 of the report should have read “the proposal would NOT result in the removal of trees from within the site”

Paragraph 6.5.7 of the report should be amended to reflect that the fence, referred to therein, was installed by the occupants of number 51 Brookdale Avenue and not the applicant and that the fence is outside the control of the applicant. 

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant.

With its agreement Councillor Clarence Barrett addressed the Committee on behalf of Councillor Ron Ower. Councillor Barrett commented that the application was for the erection of two bungalows in a back garden environment. Councillor Barrett also raised concerns regarding noise levels and disturbance that would be suffered by existing residents during the construction period. Councillor Barrett also highlighted the loss of amenity that residents would suffer from once the proposed dwellings had been built. In summation Councillor Barrett commented that the proposal was an out of place development on a small piece of land that would be of detriment to residential amenity.

During the debate members received clarification on the width of the driveway leading to the proposed properties and the current condition of the site. A member raised safety concerns over the width of the drive way.

In reply to a question officers confirmed that the number of dwellings proposed was well within the Council’s guidelines. A member noted a number of similar development sites that had been granted planning permission within the borough. 

Following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was lost by 3 votes to 7.

The committee noted that the proposed development would be liable for a CIL payment of £3,026.32. It was RESOLVED that:

That the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

·         A financial contribution of £12,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

·         All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

·         The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement is completed.

·         Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

That staff be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 3.

Councillors Hawthorn, Eagling and Osborne voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.