Issue - meetings

Description of application – Erection of part two storey/part three storey building providing 25 residential units comprising 8 x 1-bedroom units and 17 x 2-bedroom units with 18 car parking spaces (including 3 disabled spaces), refuse/recycling store and cycle parking.

Oral representations from the Operations Director for Module-AR in support of the application were received. In response to questions from Members, the Operations Director explained how the proposed photo-voltaic panels would provide the development with a constant and renewable source of electricity that would off-set both carbon and tenant fuel bills. The number of car parking spaces would increase over time and improvements made with the provision of electric car charging points. Areas had been identified for the installation of bird boxes and bug hotels which would be replaced at end of life. He anticipated that work would start at the beginning of February and complete by the first week in September.

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments, gave the following update:-

·  The recommendation on the front page should read ‘approval’. The planning application was recommended to be granted subject to the transfer of funds and conditions.

·  The GIA set out on the first table was confirmed as approximately 975spm. The GEA mentioned in the report had been inserted in error.

·  The site area was 0.29 ha.

·  A revised cycle store drawing had been submitted which showed the space could accommodate double stacked cycle parking for a total of 42 spaces.

·  A site notice was referenced in paragraph 7.1 of the report. A site notice was not a statutory requirement for this type of application and was not put up. 61 neighbours were written to directly, a newspaper advert was also published and the neighbours were reconsulted on updated plans.

·  20 late objections had been received. These were largely covered in the report. However, Members were emailed the points and responses that were not fully addressed in the scheme earlier in the day.

·  The financial payments had all been agreed.

·  It was suggested that a condition for biodiversity enhancements be added to the recommendation.

In opening the debate, Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Boughey considered this was an ideal site for housing. However, she was concerned with the design aspect and parking provision. It was disappointing to learn that contrary to Ward Councillors’ views, the units were of modern architectural design with square flat roofs and were completely out of character with the surrounding area (photographs of the local surroundings had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting). The site was located in a low PTAL area with poor access to transport, so the proposed provision of just 18 car parking spaces was at the low end of Parking Standards. Councillor Boughey moved that the application be deferred to seek redesign of the units. Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion for deferral.

Councillor Allen moved that permission be granted; this was seconded by Councillor Harris who stated that the scheme would make a significant contribution to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48