To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application which was deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding an application which had been considered but deferred from a previous meeting to allow for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan, the established tree group, the distances between the existing and proposed dwellings in Mayfair, the proposed floor plans and elevations for the dwellings, junction improvements and photographs from various aspects of the site. She also explained via a plan the density of development between Mayfair, the proposed new dwellings and Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension.
The officer then provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
· Following a conversation with the Highways Engineer, under Section 38 of the Highways Act the developer may ask for the private drive to be adopted as there were to be more than 3 dwellings off of a private drive. The developer had elected to have the road adopted.
· The above therefore overcame the issue of waste collection.
· The pedestrian footpath would be provided for the full length of the drive.
· Condition 9 with regard to a landscape plan would overcome the issue of the quality of the screening and the applicant had offered up the use of heavy standards trees.
· An additional condition would overcome any ecological issues
· She reiterated the density of development highlighted in her presentation and that the density would be a transition from Mayfair to Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension
Consideration was given to:
· The concerns of local residents with regard to the access to the site, overlooking and over development issues, the height of the proposed dwellings and that the buildings did not reflect existing properties in Mayfair.
· The distance between the proposed and existing dwellings
· The proposed screening and the offering up of mature trees for screening
· The amenity of local residents
· Access issues
RESOLVEDthat planning permission be granted subject to the prior signing of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £7,210 towards off site public open space and conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with additional conditions stating that:
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out in the ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ’ prepared by WYG dated May 2017 and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction begins.
Reason
To limit the impact of the development on any protected species which may be present
The landscape scheme, to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development, shall provide heavy standard trees.
Reason
In the interest of the character and visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(Vote 6 for: 5 against – Chairman’s Casting Vote)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as they had received correspondence regarding this matter;
(ii) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as he knew the residents of Mayfair;
(iii) Mrs Menheneott spoke in objection to the application;
(iv) Mr Upton (Agent) spoke;
(v) Cllr C R Slade spoke as Ward Member;
(vi) Cllrs: Mrs C A Collis, Mrs G Doe, R J Dolley, B A Moore and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded.
(vii) The following late information was reported: This update is to confirm the density of the proposed development, the density of the existing Mayfair properties and the density proposed through the Adopted Masterplan SPD for Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension:
Mayfair as existing (19 dwellings): 7.6 dwellings per hectare
10 Mayfair (5 proposed dwellings and retention of one existing dwelling): 13.6 dwellings per hectare
Area B park edge : 15 to 20 dwellings per hectare
One further email of objection has been received.
One email of objection has been received (to supplement an existing objection). A summary of it as follows: disappointment for the lack of opportunity members of the public had to speak at the Planning Member Working Site Visit; the proposal represents over development of the site; bungalows would be more in keeping; there may be a badger sett on the site which requires additional ecological assessment.
The following condition is recommended for inclusion should planning consent at 10 Mayfair be forthcoming:
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out in the ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ’ prepared by WYG dated May 2017 and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction begins.
Reason
To limit the impact of the development on any protected species which may be present
Following the PMWG site visit at which the applicant offered heavy standard trees for inclusion in the landscape scheme to following condition is recommended should planning consent be forth coming:
The landscape scheme, to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development, shall provide heavy standard trees.
Reason
In the interest of the character and visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
One further email of objection has been received.
Please add after it – details to be presented by the objector at public question time.
There is also an objection from a new objector. Please add the following text:
An email of objection has been received, summarised as follows: the proposal would represent a loss of privacy and loss of country view.
(viii) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
Supporting documents: