Issue - meetings

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Lower innings, associated interbal road, parking, landscaping, amenity space and open space.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording - 9 minutes 50 seconds

Councillor Nigel Mason declared an interest and moved to the public gallery.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       Section 2.1 reference to policy HD6 is incorrect and the correct policy HD3 which is considered in the report.

·       Section 4.3.1 report to defer to enable applicant to review application to access point to Southeast of site together with wording on Condition 8 with reference to cycle path and pedestrian network review and addressing reasons for deferral.

·       It was noted that Alexander Greaves is incorrectly referred to as Kings Counsel rather than Counsel.

·       Section 4.3.16 should read “highway code does not seek to address”

·       Section 4.3.25 – it was noted the monitoring fees are missing from table.

·       The Applicant and agent had agreed to pre commencement conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00563/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

In response to the points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer stated that:

·       All properties in the development would be fitted with solar panels.

·       There would be 21 affordable homes.

·       A maintenance company would be responsible for the upkeep of the communal areas and play area and provisions would be made to monitor the management of the open spaces in the S106 agreement.

·       The main access to the development would be via Oughtonhead Lane. Members were concerned about the disabled access at this point. It was not proposed to make many changes to the Lane as this would alter the character of the area. There was still concern that this is the only vehicular entrance to the site.

·       Safety measures would be set out in the Construction Management Plan, and this was covered by Condition 7.

·       A letter had been sent by the applicant to the occupants of the management company regarding request for access via Bowlers End. This was again refused as this is a private road.

The Chair invited Mr Neil Dodds to speak against the application. Mr Dodds thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       Traffic from the development was estimated to be around 233 vehicles per day, equating to 27 per hour in the daytime and 30 per hour in the evening.

·       Roads surrounding the site, including Oughtonhead Lane, Westbury Close and Redhill Road were all heavily congested.

·       Concerns were raised over air pollution in this area.

·       There were many pedestrians and cyclists in the area of Lower Innings and Redhill Road.

·       The crossover on Oughtonhead Lane was deemed to be against the Highway Code, as it would not give priority to horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists. There would be a need for prominent signs on the crossing.

·       The sight lines had been missed from the technical drawings.

·       Construction traffic would be exiting the site via Lower Innings, which was disappointing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6