This was an outline planning application for the erection of one dwelling. The site comprised a parcel of land extending from Hadley Park Road between numbers 133 and 135 and incorporated a wider parcel of land between the rear gardens of number 135 and 137. Since the report had been published, an additional representation in support had been received.
Councillor Stuart Parr, parish councillor, spoke against the application. The development was a garden development and this was against council policy and access two the property would be unsafe due to poor visibility existing to Hadley Park Road.
Dawne Telford, the applicant, spoke for the application. AC Development had acquired and renovated the derelict 135 and 137 Hadley Park Road cottages, bringing them back to use. The application on the land at the rear was in line with policy requirements and would bring derelict land back to use and provide affordable accommodation for local people.
The Planning Officer stated that highway safety and the principle of development were the main consideration of the application. All matters in the application were reserved. The illustrative block and elevation plan demonstrated that single storey development could be accommodated on the site and meet NDSS standards. Back-land development was often resisted but as the application would not affect the character of the area and did not affect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, this was not seen as an issue.
Following the presentation, Members posed a number of questions:
8.7.1 in the report mentions a TPO, was the tree removed as part of the Park Court Development?
Confirmation of this had not been confirmed, however, this matter was not material to the application. There was sufficient space for replanting in the corner in question if needed.
Were there any concerns regarding things that had not been included in the submission?
No, but to progress the applicant would need to submit a reserved matters application on detailed matters.
On what grounds was back-land development usually resisted?
It was sometimes resisted on grounds of impact to the character of an area or inadequate separation distance. This was why an illustrative floor plan was requested. It had been provided and a single storey dwelling would not affect either character or separation.
There was a mention of Japanese knotweed in the report, had this been investigated?
An informative could be added in terms of any decision made.
Members also queried the visibility when exiting the property and the position of the bus stop. The Planning Officer advised that highways had considered the existing position and had not considered it detrimental given the fall-back position.
Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:
RESOLVED - that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:
a) The following Condition(s) and Informative(s) (with authority to finalise Condition(s) to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager):
Reserved Matters Time Limit
Construction Environmental Management Plan
Foul and Surface Water
Materials (details to be submitted)
Parking, Turning, Loading (to be submitted)
Access drive surface / bound material (to be submitted)
Nesting and Roosting Boxes
Scale of Development (single storey)
Illustrative Site Layout Plan (general principles)
Highways License Informative
Nesting Wild birds Informative
Restriction to 1No. dwelling
Japanese Knotweed Informative