Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2021 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2021 were approved as a correct record.

To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, or contact with applicants/objectors under the Planning Code.

a) Disclosures of interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were none.

b) Declarations of interest under the Council’s Planning Code

Councillors J. Doran, M. Gibson, H. Harvey, T. Lagden, R. Noble, R.W. Sider BEM, R.A. Smith Ainsley, B. Spoor, J. Vinson reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 19/01211/FUL but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors M. Gibson, H. Harvey, R. Noble, R.W. Sider BEM all declared they had visited the site, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor H Harvey declared that she was a ward councillor who lived near the application site but would be keeping an open mind.

Councillors J. Doran, R.A. Smith-Ainsley, R. Noble, and H. Harvey all declared they were members of the Development Sub-Committee and attended a meeting of that sub-committee on 9 August 2021 during which Benwell Phase 2 was discussed. They declared at that meeting they were members of the Planning Committee and would not be making any comment on the application due to come before the Planning Committee and would approach the consideration of the application on the planning issues put forward.

Cllr K. Grant declared she was in attendance as ward councillor, had received communications from residents regarding the application, and was speaking at the meeting on their behalf.

Ward

Sunbury East

Proposal

Erection of 5 storey residential block to provide 39 residential units, with a mix of 12 x 1-bed, 24 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed units together with associated parking, landscape and access.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval.

Description:

Erection of 5 storey residential block to provide 39 residential units, with a mix of 12 x 1-bed, 24 x 2-bed, and 3 x 3-bed units together with associated parking, landscape and access.

Additional Information:

The Council’s Strategic Planning Officer has provided an updated Draft Statement of Five Year Housing Land Supply: Deliverable Housing Sites as at 1 April 2021, that updates the figure to 4.5 years. Paragraph 7.10 of the report should therefore be revised to state:

‘The effect of this increased requirement with the application of a 20% buffer is that the identified sites only represent a 4.5 year supply and accordingly the Council cannot at present demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. There is, therefore, a presumption in favour of sustainable development.’

Members will have received a letter and Briefing Note dated 8^th October. The letter states that: ‘There has been a number of objections to these proposals for 39 homes, a great many of which are multiple objections from the same households.’

Member should also be aware that a representation have been received stating that the 191 representations state in the report is incorrect and the actual number is higher (230).

The 191 letters of objection are individual representations received, multiple letters from the same individual are not counted through the Council’s system, although the content is considered in the overall view of the application.

Three additional representations have been received on the following grounds:

·         Proximity to existing properties

·         Loss of TPO trees

·         Already too busy/crowded with increase in traffic and noise

·         Increased traffic

·         Financial considerations for tax payers

Para 7.89 of the committee report refers to the planting of 38 trees to mitigate the loss of TPO trees, however Plan L-401 Rev P05 Tree Plan identifies 48 new trees will be planted within the site.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Andrew Peters, John Hirsh, and Jonathan Lewis spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-       The distance between the proposed development and existing neighbouring properties was less than the minimum required

-       The proposed development failed the national guidance on maintaining reasonable light for existing neighbouring properties

-       Neighbouring properties would experience a loss of privacy due to the height, window placement, and deciduous boundary trees

-       The proposed development contradicted planning policies and guidance

-       The proposed development would be dominant over surrounding residences and be out-of-character with existing properties

-       The density of the proposed development exceeded the recommended dwellings per hectare

-       Mature trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) would be removed

-       The proposed development would not deliver the minimum required affordable housing for new developments

-       Parking for residents of the development would be against the boundaries of the existing neighbouring properties

-       The proposed development would be a change of amenity to the site and result in more noise and pollution

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Karen Sinclair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 436/21

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 10 July 2021 to 27 September 2021.

The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Planning Development Manager.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.

To note the details of future major planning applications.

The Planning Development Manager submitted a report outlining major applications that may be brought before the Planning Committee for determination.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.