Issue - meetings

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and associated works.

Late items:

Consultation Responses:

Environment Agency

Additional information has been submitted by the objectors this has been reviewed by the Environment Agency who have confirmed that they have no objection to the development.

Representations

Additional representations have been received from an objector raising concerns regarding the processing of the application and inaccuracies in the Officer report to Committee.  The process was reviewed by a Scrutiny Working Group on the 8 January 2018.  A note on the findings will be circulated to Members.  The key findings of the Working Group were that the current planning application had been processed correctly in line with the relevant procedures.

The Officer Report has been reviewed and there are no inaccuracies in the report.  The Officer Report accurately reflects the written responses from statutory consultees and provides professional planning advice into the relevant material planning considerations which need to be considered in the determination of the planning application.

Appraisal:-

Connectivity and access

An additional condition is required to ensure the construction of an additional footpath.

Policy DM17 of the SADMP requires development to ensure that there is convenient and safe access for walking and cycling to facilities and services.

The proposed layout of the site provides pedestrian and vehicular access to Ashby Road along the main entrance and pedestrian access to footpath U76 to the east of the site. It is considered that pedestrian access could be improved to Ashby Road for the future residents residing in the dwellings on the northern end of the site. A footpath could be provided from Ashby Road between nos 78 and 80, to the adoptable road in the north west corner of the site near to plot nos 47, 48 and 49. The footpath could reduce the width of the garden of plot 47 which would still be a reasonable size or adjoin the rear access serving plot 48. As a footpath could be provided without the need for significant amendments to the layout it is considered that the footpath could be secured through a suitably worded condition.

Recommendation:- Approve subject to conditions as set out in paragraph 11.4 of the case officer’s committee report and the condition:

36. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no. 40397/001O - Site Layout, no development associated with the construction of any dwelling shall commence until such time as a scheme for a footpath link between Ashby Road, between Nos. 78 and 80 Ashby Road, and the adoptable highway in the north west corner of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No more than 80% of the dwellings shall be occupied until the footpath link has been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access to facilities and services to accord with Policy DM17 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and associated works.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be approved and officer advice in relation to the outline planning permission that already existed on the site for residential development and infilling of the pit and associated matters that had been considered by the inspector at appeal, some members felt that they could not support the application. Councillor Hodgkins, seconded by Councillor Kirby, proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

“The development, by virtue of its layout, would create parking arrangements and areas of hardstanding that would not be conducive for residents to park or have deficiencies which would lead to the displacement of parking on the street, creating an unattractive streetscene that would be detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers. The development would also create areas of public open space which have no natural surveillance. The development is therefore overdevelopment, it would not function well over the lifetime of the development, would not create high quality streetscenes in which to live, nor design out crime. The development is therefore contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and DM10 of the SADMP July 2016.”

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused on the grounds that the development, by virtue of its layout, would create parking arrangements and areas of hardstanding that would not be conducive for residents to park or have deficiencies which would lead to the displacement of parking on the street, creating an unattractive streetscene that would be detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers. The development would also create areas of public open space which have no natural surveillance. The development is therefore overdevelopment, it would not function well over the lifetime of the development, would not create high quality streetscenes in which to live, nor design out crime. The development is therefore contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and DM10 of the SADMP July 2016.