Agenda item

The report before members related to an application to demolish a single storey building and erect a two-storey residential mews development providing 4 three-bedroom houses (with accommodation in the roof space) with on-site parking for 4 vehicles and a landscaped courtyard.

Members were advised that one late letter of representation had been received raising concerns over conflicts of land use resulting from the commercial/residential mix of the area.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The objector, who represented commercial properties located in the area of the proposal, stated that the proposed residential development would not be in keeping with the existing commercial uses in the area. It was suggested that future occupiers of the development could seek restrictions on the operation of the current commercial uses in the area.

In response the applicant confirmed that the number of units within the development had been reduced from 7 to 4; that there was no authorised pedestrian right of way through the site; that issues relating to external noise and odour emanating from the existing commercial uses in the vicinity of the site had been dealt with in the application. The applicant suggested that it was not unusual, within new developments,  to see a mix of residential and A3 uses in one particular area.

During the debate members sought clarification on whether there was an existing public right of way on the development site. Officers confirmed that there was no evidence of such. Members commented that the proposal was a good example of a town centre development and a better use of the site than the existing car wash.  Members also debated the potential problems that could be experienced with commercial deliveries taking place on the site. Members took note of the existing residential developments in close proximity to the application site.

The Committee noted that the development attracted a Mayoral CIL payment of £8,760 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £24,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the 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 preparation of the Agreement, prior to completion of the Agreement, irrespective of whether the Agreement is completed.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the Agreement.

That Staff be authorised to enter into such an agreement and that upon its completion planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

Councillors Bennett and Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.