Erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated parking.

Erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated parking.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent advising that the land served no other property other than their clients, the proposed use would have less impact than a new commercial use, and the proposed development enhances the Conservation Area.

Councillor AM Toon, a Local Ward Member, commented on traffic congestion and access issues and said that there was a need for additional road markings to prevent blockages and facilitate easier access and egress.  It was questioned whether this site was suitable for residential development given the predominantly commercial uses in the vicinity, particularly given the potential impact of commercial activities on the future occupants of the dwellings.  Given these and other considerations, Councillor Toon proposed that the application be refused as the site was not considered suitable for residential development, would represent an overintensive form of development, highway safety issues, and would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Councillor SPA Daniels, also a Local Ward Member, did not consider the site to be suitable for the form of development proposed and commented on the proximity of a bus lane to the access.  A number of Members expressed similar views.

Councillor WJ Walling suggested that consideration should be given to the provision of an access via the adjoining Aldi superstore car park.  Councillor PJ Edwards concurred and questioned whether deferral of the application could provide an opportunity for the applicant to examine this possibility with the relevant landowner/s.

Councillor MAF Hubbard acknowledged the traffic problems on the local road network but reminded the Sub-Committee that there was an established historic access from the highway.  He suggested that informal parking on the site perhaps generated more traffic movements than would be the case with a residential development.  He also noted that it was for potential future occupants to decide whether the dwellings provided a suitable form of accommodation for their particular needs.

Councillor NL Vaughan expressed concerns about the limited comment provided by the Traffic Manager regarding access and highways issues.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members needed to consider the application before them, the proposal could result in a net reduction in parking on the site, the development would comprise modest two, two-bedroom dwellings, there was already mixed use development in the area which was not untypical of vibrant city centre locations, and the proximity of the site to the city centre was likely to limit the number of vehicular movements.

A motion to approve the application failed and a motion to refuse planning permission was then agreed.

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 and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The site is not considered suitable for residential development;

2.            The proposal would represent an overintensive form of development;

3.            Highways safety issues; and

4.            The proposal would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation 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 and Transportation.]