Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report, explaining that a previous application had been approved on this site as part of a Section 106 (S106) obligation because the Category B settlement had exceeded its growth for the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) period.  However, the applicant had not signed the S106 and the proposal was therefore refused under delegated powers.  This application was a resubmission of that proposal but in view of the date of the UDP there was no longer a requirement to comply with policy HSG3 and therefore approval of the application was recommended. 

            Mr. I. Warlow spoke against the application which, he advised, he had also done on the previous application for this site.  He felt that the plans had not shown how close the site was to the properties at 35 and 37 Wood Lane.  He raised concern about the significant excavation that would be required as this site was elevated by six feet and if groundwork was not carried out, the ground floor rooms would be at the same height as his first floor rooms.  The side windows would also overlook his daughter’s bedroom window.  There would be light and noise pollution on neighbouring properties as a result of the application and concern had been expressed about the ability to comply with condition 10.  He added that the owners of number 37 had been asked to sign a contract to indicate that they would not object to the proposals for this property.  Mr. Warlow felt that the site would impact on the local area and there had already been an additional 100 properties being permitted in the locality and therefore this one extra property was not required.  He also felt that it was backland development and that the application should be refused. 

            Mr. C. Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The earlier application had required the completion of a Section 106 agreement but this had not been signed because he had deemed the scheme to be unviable if the S106 had been signed.  He had listened to the concerns raised and explained that the floor levels were at a similar level to those of number 37.  Both of the Local Members had asked for Committee determination.  As the UDP had expired in April 2015, he felt that this should be treated as a new application and considered on its own merits.  There had been no objections from the Head of Assets and Transportation and the addition of one dwelling would not significantly increase the traffic in the area.  The issue of backland development had been addressed and there were already houses to the rear of 31, 33 and 35 Wood Lane.  The Council only had a 3.7  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175