Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 completion and conditions

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.   The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

2.   Councillor Hasan arrived at the meeting, but having missed the beginning of the item, would not be permitted to vote on this application.

3.   Receipt of revised plans detailing minor alterations to the proposal.

4.   Receipt of two additional letters of objection, summarised verbally by the Planning Decisions Manager.

5.   The deputation of Mr Andy Barker on behalf of the Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association, including the following points:

a.  The residents’ association had objected to the sale of the car park and although it was now accepted that some form of development would go ahead, due consideration should be given to this location within a Conservation Area.

b.  The proposal would amount to overdevelopment and was an inappropriate application which tried to squeeze too much into a cramped site and would be out of keeping with other residences in the area.

c.  The homes would be built over three floors, unlike any other houses in the vicinity and would have a different roof line which would exaggerate the apparent height. The front elevations would be close to the pavement and there would be overlooking from the roof terraces.

d.  Conservation Advisory Group continued to object to the proposal.

e.  Amenity space was below levels required by the UDP.

f.  There were potential traffic dangers. This was a busy main road and the access points could be problematical being opposite the zebra crossing and Grovelands Park entrance and there may be a need to reverse out.

g.  Most nearby on-street parking was time restricted.

h.  It was questioned where refuse lorries would stop.

i.  There were concerns about potential interference with the water table.

6.   The statement of Councillor Robert Hayward, Southgate Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a.  In pre-application discussions it had been advised by the Council that three houses would be appropriate.

b.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had raised numerous concerns, detailed in the officer’s report, including the point that too much development was being squeezed onto this site, and that removing the detached house from the scheme would improve it considerably.

c.  The proposals were against UDP policies relating to conservation areas, and he asked that the application be refused.

7.   The response of Mr David Castle, the architect, including the following points:

a.  This design was based on the design guide produced for the sale of the site.

b.  He had worked closely with the Planning Department. There had been a successful pre-application series of meetings, and amendments had been made to the proposals to meet requirements as suggested.

c.  The site was on the boundary and not in the centre of the Conservation Area, and the site related much more closely to the busy The Bourne and the entrance to the park. Viewed from The Bourne, the frequency of houses was similar to the spacing in the rest of the Conservation Area.

d.  Ground water flow would not be interrupted. A trial hole on site had found that the water table was well below the surface, and the three houses were designed on piles not on deep foundations.

e.  If there was flooding from the allotments to the park, space between the houses would let such water escape and he was confident there would not be a flood problem.

f.  The scheme was designed to use the palette of the existing Conservation Area. The houses had been kept quite simple, the design was discreet and fitting to the area.

8.   The Traffic and Transportation Officer responded to Members’ queries, including that the previous car park use would have generated more trips than this development, confirmation that cars should be able to turn and exit without needing to reverse, and advice that parking restrictions could be reviewed if it was felt they were not meeting the area’s needs.

9.   In reference to the UDP policies raised by Councillor Hayward, the Planning Decisions Manager confirmed they were saved policies and had been picked up in the report, but apologised that they were omitted from the list of relevant policies in the report.

10. Dennis Stacey, Chairman of Conservation Advisory Group, confirmed comments made by the Group during consultation on the application and that the proposals were considered over-development on a cramped site.

11. Officers responded to Members’ concerns and questions including in relation to flood risk, amenity space provision, plot size, sustainability and road safety, and that on balance it was considered that planning approval could be recommended.

12. The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 7 votes for and 6 against.

AGREED that upon completion of the Section 106 Agreement, the Head of Development Services / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.