Minutes:
The Assistant Director of Planning:
a) advised that Reserved Matters planning permission was sought including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, for the erection of 4 dwellings on a parcel of land on Derwent Street, situated off Carholme Road
b) described the area characterised by two-storey terrace properties, currently occupied by 18 single storey lock-up garages with outline permission granted for up to 4 dwellings
c) provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:
· Policy LP26:Design and Amenity
· National Planning Policy Framework
d) advised Planning Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:
· Principle of the Development
· Visual Amenity and Design
· Impact on Neighbours
· Technical Matters
e) outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise
f) referred to the Update sheet which contained additional consultee responses and photographs in respect of the proposed application for development
g) concluded that:
· The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and would assimilate well into the streetscene.
· The proposal would have no adverse impacts on neighbours and would be an acceptable use in this location.
· The proposal therefore accorded with national and local planning policy.
Julie Lamb, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main points:
· She lived on the curve of Derwent Street , to the front of which a car park would be built as shown on the photographs included on the Update Sheet.
· She had lived there for 16 years.
· The road was not wide.
· Emergency vehicles struggled to access the road due to its width.
· There was not enough room for turning space.
· If the houses were moved back 5.5metres a car parking space could be accommodated in front of the dwellings rather than reducing the available car turning area at the end of the street.
· The lamp post close to her house would need to be moved, making the area very dark around her property.
· One neighbour would experience overlooking from the proposed development.
· Construction vehicles parked on the side of her house meaning she had to wait to gain access to her driveway.
· The car parking area had been removed as part of the land although it did not belong to the developers.
· Cars often turned round at night in front of her window and that of neighbours, having to reverse due to lack of turning space.
· She hoped Planning Committee would listen to the impact on existing residents which would occur as a result of the proposed build.
The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.
The following comments were received from members:
· The concerns again related to highway issues, however as the Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposed scheme there was no valid reason to vote against it.
· The remit of Planning Committee was to consider the application before it this evening, which already had outline planning permission.
· Land ownership was a legal matter and not within the remit of Planning Committee.
· Streets in the City Centre were typically narrow.
· There was sympathy for existing residents, however, car ownership had expanded in the modern world since the houses were originally built.
· If the planning application was to be refused, the Planning Authority would be open to serious challenge.
· This was the best development officers could provide here.
· The level of infill however was not acceptable
A motion was moved, seconded, voted on and carried that provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points be required as an additional condition of grant of planning permission.
RESOLVED that planning permission be Granted subject to the following conditions:
· Works to commence within 3 years
· Works to be carried out in accordance with the plans
· Hours of working restriction
· Electric Vehicle Charging Points to be provided.
Supporting documents: