Agenda item

Proposal Description: The construction of a pair of semi-detached two-storey dwellings to the rear of the plot, fronting Thornton Close.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding several matters including the following.

1. Amendment to Condition 16: This condition now includes the removal of all permitted development rights from Part 1 and Class A of the GPDO (General Permitted Development Order), specifically relating to hard surfacing. Full details were set out in the update sheet.
2. New Condition 17: This new condition requires a construction management plan to be submitted, which must cover aspects such as parking, vehicle turning, construction vehicle movements, and deliveries. Full details were set out in the update sheet.

In addition, the case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information concerning that a new condition will be added concerning access to the site from Thornton Close. This condition would require evidence to be submitted prior to the commencement of works, confirming that the land for access has either been purchased or that rights for access, utility services, and drainage have been granted by the current landowner.

The purpose of this is to ensure that the development is accessible to vehicles and that there is sufficient room for safe manoeuvring.

During public participation, Jonathan Hickey and James Chaplin spoke in objection to the application, and Madhu Murtala spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Margot Power spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1. Councillor Power did not believe that there would be a positive impact on the character of the area. She stated that Thornton Close residents would lose "free-range" car parking spaces and an area of hedging. She also disputed that the development would not harm residential amenities, highlighting that it would result in increased traffic and reduced parking provision.
2. It was pointed out that the report indicated 15 properties nearby at that end of Thornton Close. This was quite a densely packed area where some properties had no outside space. Councillor Power questioned why residents of Thornton Close had not been notified of the planning application, as they were the ones who would be most affected, whilst the impact on Grange Road residents was comparatively minor.
3. Councillor Power referenced the original planning application for the wider development, which was for 34 houses and 75 car parking spaces. She highlighted a discrepancy in the current car parking space count for the area, noting the officer's figure of 56 spaces, whereas her own count was 42 spaces plus eight garages. She added that submitted photographs, including those of the night-time parking situation, illustrated the limited parking available.
4. In conclusion, Councillor Power stated that the two proposed houses would damage the visual appearance of Thornton Close, as residents would overlook parked cars and bins instead of greenery. She felt the development would negatively impact close neighbours, would remove two regularly used “free-range” car parking spaces, and would contribute to increased traffic on the already congested Thornton Close. Councillor Power urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Clare Pinniger spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1. She confirmed that she was in complete agreement with the views previously expressed by Councillor Power.
2. She expressed concern regarding the impact on the residents of Thornton Close, who reportedly faced an unlimited financial liability for the planning application despite an apparent lack of consultation.
3. She highlighted that the road in Thornton Close was private, with residents responsible for all associated costs, and that proper consultation with them had been omitted.
4. Concern was also raised about the potential impact of the development on a child with special educational needs.
5. An impression had been created of a "cavalier" and "high-handed" approach by the developers, who had seemingly failed to consult the individuals most affected by the proposal.
6. It was suggested that this situation could lead to significant future problems for both the residents and potentially the Council.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer regarding two matters that had been raised:

1. Equalities Act: It was clarified that the council, as a public body, has a duty under the Equalities Act 2010 to have due regard for protected characteristics in all planning decisions, meaning it must be considered in the decision-making process, even if other regulatory regimes might address specific impacts like noise.
2. Highways: He advised that the road in question is privately maintained, meaning access and maintenance are civil matters between the residents, the management company, and the developer, with a proposed planning condition ensuring all necessary private legal rights and arrangements are secured before construction commences.

RESOLVED

1.    The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.

2.    In addition and in accordance with the officer's verbal update, an additional condition be included concerning access to the site from Thornton Close. This condition would require evidence to be submitted prior to the commencement of works, confirming that the land for access has either been purchased or that rights for access, utility services, and drainage have been granted by the current landowner. This condition would include that the parking spaces that are shown on the plan must be kept available for residents of those properties at all times for the lifetime of the permission. The purpose of this additional is to ensure the development is accessible to vehicles and that there is sufficient room for safe manoeuvring. The precise wording is to be delegated to the Chair of the Planning Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.