Minutes:
The planning application before members proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new building containing nine 2-bedroom flats. The building would include openings in all of its elevations, although all of the west-facing windows above first floor level would be set at a height of 1.7m. Each of the upper floor flats would include a balcony, whilst the ground floor units would include private amenity spaces. The site would include a communal garden area between the proposed building, located towards the western end of the site, and the car park, located at the eastern end of the site. The car park would include nine parking spaces. The proposal would include bin storage, located at the western end of the site, and bicycle storage located at the eastern end of the site.
Members were advised that there was an amendment to the report.
The report stated that the proposed building would be located approximately 1 metre from the boundary with the highway. The actual distance was between 2.3 and 3.3 metres.
Officers also clarified that the second refusal reason shown in the report should be interpreted as although the proposal would not overshadow the neighbouring church site it could prejudice the potential development potential of the church site. Officers clarified that the second refusal reason was based on Planning Policy DC61.
Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillors Barry Tebbutt and Gillian Ford.
Councillor Tebbutt had called the application in on the grounds of boundary and overlooking issues, and the relationship between the proposal and the church.
Councillor Ford had called the application in on the grounds of over intensification of development, height of development was over that of properties directly opposite and adjacent and not in keeping with the streetscene.
With its agreement Councillor Ford addressed the Committee.
Councillor Ford commented that the over intensification of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area. Councillor Ford also commented that the height of the proposed development would be at odds with the existing properties in Deyncourt Road. Councillor Ford concluded that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site resulting in a lack of amenity space, would have an adverse effect on the highway through the overspill of traffic and would have an overbearing impact on the adjoining church site.
During the debate members discussed the impact the development would have on the adjoining church site and existing properties in the area that had been re-developed.
Members also discussed the Hall Lane Special Policy which had previously been introduced to ensure adequate levels of amenity space for future occupiers of new developments.
During the debate members advised that they were minded to approve the granting of planning permission but were concerned that as the report recommended refusal there were no Section 106 terms or conditions attached to the report.
The report recommended that planning permission be refused, however following a motion to defer the consideration of the proposal it was RESOLVED that consideration of the proposal be deferred to allow officers to bring back a report identifying terms for a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions should members be minded to resolve to grant permission and to include a background summary on the Hall Lane Special Policy including identifying whether all or part, of the site was within the policy’s area.
The vote to defer consideration of the report was carried by 9 votes to 2.
Councillors McGeary and Durant voted against the resolution to defer the consideration of the report.