Erection of six no. two bed maisonettes and four no. two bed flats with associated parking for fourteen cars.

Erection of six no. two bed maisonettes and four no. two bed flats with associated parking for fourteen cars.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§         A further letter of objection had been received from Paul Smith and the comments were outlined.

§         Comments had been received from the project leader responsible for the flood defences confirming that, providing there was no significant reduction or raising of ground levels within the site, the development would have no impact on the design of the flood wall adjacent the site.

§         Comments had been received from the Council’s Archaeologist in response to the archaeological evaluation and were summarised.

§         Comments had been received from the Council’s Ecologist and were summarised.

§         Further comments had been received from the Traffic Manger advising that, without the existing consent to use the site as a car park, the application could not be supported due to the substandard access.  Based upon further information provided, the current use of the parking area was very low and therefore the proposed use would be a more intensive use of the site.  In light of the further information, the Traffic Manager’s recommendation was that of refusal.

§         A draft Section 106 Agreement had been received covering the Heads of Terms detailed in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that:

§         The plan in the agenda excluded a strip of land along the northern boundary of the site and this was clarified during the presentation.

§         In response to the Traffic Manager’s recommendation of refusal, it was acknowledged that the access was substandard but the existing permission was unrestricted and, therefore, the site could be used more intensively attracting a comparable flow of traffic and pedestrian activity to the proposed development.  Therefore, notwithstanding the Traffic Manager recommendation, in light of the lawful use of the site, the traffic impact was considered acceptable.

§         Comments were still awaited from the Environment Agency.

§         Additional conditions were recommended in order to prevent any development from commencing until the flood defences had been completed and certified as operational.  Further conditions were also recommended to address the ecological requirements.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Watkins spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Jamieson spoke in support of the application.

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, commented on the poor visibility and narrowness of the access, the high level of vehicle and pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the site, and difficulties with traffic and congestion on adjoining roads.  Given these considerations, she felt unable to support the application.

Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about the potential for overlooking of existing properties and impact on the privacy of the occupants.  He commented on the vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements associated with the Leisure Pool, Bishop’s Meadows and other nearby facilities.  In light of this, he felt that the intensification of the use of this substandard access would compromise highway safety and proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor AT Oliver, the other Local Ward Member, felt that, whilst the design had merit, the recommendation from the Traffic Manager was a crucial issue in this instance.  He also commented on Unitary Development Plan Policy DR7 (Flood Risk) and expressed concerns that the site was in a high risk area, the development could not be considered essential, that no certainty could be given in respect of the frequency of flooding and the success of the flood defences, that there was a need for a buffer between the flood defences and existing properties, and there was still the potential for ground water problems.  He also felt that the narrowness of the access would restrict the efficient operation of the emergency services.

The Principal Planning Officer re-iterated that officers concurred about the substandard nature of the access but a judgement had to be made on the acceptability of the proposal given the existing lawful use of the site as a car park with no restrictions.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      Highways safety

2.      Flooding (subject to the receipt of outstanding comments from the Environment Agency in relation to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment)

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services in this instance given the objection outstanding from the Traffic Manager.]