The Committee considered an application for
the redevelopment of a site to include demolition of existing
building and construction of 22no. residential apartments with
associated car parking and amenities, land at 4 Mayfield Road.
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application had been referred to Planning
Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation and
at the request of Councillor Gregson on the grounds of highway
matters/parking issues and the scale of the development.
The report set out the background to the
proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself,
relevant planning policies, planning history and the
representations and consultations where applicable.
The information was presented as set out by
the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to
the late papers which related to the following:
Revised comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority recommending
three additional conditions; and
A further written submission from Sam and Emma Powell, neighbour
The Development Management Team Leader, in
referring to the report, made particular reference to the issue of
car parking provision, which was previously a feature of this site,
planning permission from 1983, reference 83/0774 refers, the
decision notice was attached as appendix 1 of the
report. He explained that there is no
reason why these 6 spaces are to be retained which was clarified in
paragraphs 7.29 and 7.30 of the report.
It was also confirmed that the application was
the subject of a Section 106 Agreement and the draft Heads of Terms
were attached as appendix 2 of the report.
The following people had registered to speak
on the application:
(Objector) and David Addison (Agent on behalf of Applicant)
A local Ward Member, Councillor Gregson also
addressed the Committee.
Key Points of
The objector, who lives adjacent to the development site, informed
the Committee that the proposed apartment block will overlook his
property, which will result in a loss of privacy. He considered the proposed building to be visually
overbearing which will be out of keeping with the neighbouring
properties. In referring to the decision of 1983 he believed that
the 6 spaces made available to local residents were a lifetime
covenant and should be included on any plans. He felt that the proposal would increase the
already busy and congested road. He
asked that the Committee refuse the application and that the
developers re-submit a building design that is smaller, less
intrusive and more sensitive to the area.
The objector responded to questions from Members, in particular
around the current issues relating to parking in the area.
The agent, on behalf of the applicant, in addressing the Committee
stated that this proposal was a carefully considered and
sympathetic redevelopment of the site.
The applicant has worked with Officers to address any concerns
raised, and as part of discussions had agreed to bring forward the
front block so as to ...
view the full minutes text for item 77.