Agenda item

            That the application be deferred for a planning site visit. 

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 and said that the application involved the demolition of the public house.  The site was in the settlement boundary of Sandycroft in a predominantly residential area.  The objections and letters of support were reported in paragraph 4.00.  The site which was in the Category B settlement, with growth of 2%, had been on the market for over 12 months.  A flood consequences assessment had been undertaken and a minimum finished floor level was proposed, which was detailed in the report.  There would be no living accommodation on the ground floor and concerns had been raised about the three storey nature of the buildings and the impact in terms of overlooking on residential amenity.  The height of the buildings was similar to the existing properties and the proposal was therefore not considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area.  On the issue of space around dwellings, which had been raised as a concern by residents, the officer was satisfied that it would not have a detrimental impact on the area.  She detailed the contributions which would be provided by the Section 106 agreement.  The officer confirmed that a letter had been handed to her by the Chair of the Committee about concerns from residents.

                        Ms. S. Stevens spoke against the application which she felt did not comply with Local Planning Guidance Note 2 on Space Around Dwellings.  The guideline of 22 metres had not been complied with between the development and 50 Phillip Street and she added that the guidance did not cover three storey dwellings.  The difference in levels would result in the neighbouring properties being overlooked and if the guidance for properties on a slope was applied, then the distance should be 27 metres.  Ms. Stevens felt that the living rooms at first and second floor level in the development would have a view into 50 and 46 Phillip Street and would compromise the privacy of the garden in these properties.  She raised concern about foul drainage and felt that this issue should be detailed in the report.  She said that the issue of overlooking was unacceptable and raised concern about parking issues.  In summary she felt that a three storey development was out of keeping and that two storeys would be more acceptable and would reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. 

                        Mr. E. Roberts, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He commended the officer’s report and said that the proposal met all relevant policies and guidance.  There had been no objection from statutory consultees and it met the standards set for highways.  He said that the Council had not demonstrated a 5 year land supply and there was a specific need for housing in Sandycroft particularly for one and two bedroom apartments.  The proposal exceeded space around dwellings guidelines and did not overshadow or overlook other properties.        

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  The objector had challenged the content of the report on space around dwellings and policy guidelines and Councillor Halford felt that the application should be deferred or refused.  In response, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that it was not unusual for objectors and officers to have a different view but reminded the Committee that the view of the officer was unbiased.  He suggested that the application could be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.  Councillor Halford proposed deferral for a site visit which was duly seconded.      

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be deferred for a planning site visit.