Agenda and minutes

Councillors Baker, Colin Hay, and Hobley.

There were none.

16/01337/FUL 1 College Gate:  Councillors Paul McCloskey and Lillywhite both visited this site independently.

Two questions were submitted by Councillor Willingham re (i) S106 monies available in St Peter’s Ward, and (ii) monitoring of S106 contributions.  Officer responses were circulated with the agenda.  Councillor Willingham was not present at the meeting.  The responses were taken as read.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th October 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:

16/01597/FUL 6 Wards Road, Page 11

PT:  there are lively likely to be more and more applications of this kind.

MJC introduced the application as above, confirming that the recommendation is to refuse.  Members will remember it was originally included on September’s agenda, but was deferred to allow for a further consultation response from the County Council.  Highways officers originally raised no objection on road safety issues, then changed their recommendation to refuse on the grounds of poor visibility. Following a police speed consultation on Greenhills Road, the recommendation was changed back to permit,  but as a result of a further speed survey submitted by a third party, suggesting the 30mph speed limit is frequently broken, the County objected to the application for not providing safe and sustainable access with regard to visibility.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor  Baker and because the Parish Council has objected.  The recommendation to refuse is on highways and visibility grounds, although officers consider the principle of a dwelling here to be acceptable if suitable access can be found.

Public Speaking:

Mr Borrie, neighbour, in objection, on behalf of neighbours at 14 Greenhills Road, and 6A and 7 The Avenue

The case officer, parish council and Highways officer all recommend refusal.  Would like to re-emphasise three points of detailed objections already made.  Firstly, safe access to the site:  the highways authority has determined that the proposed access fails to meet the requirements to ensure the safety of other road users and pedestrians, and has recommended refusal based on the width of the road and the police speed survey of February 2016.  Does not consider that the proposal should be rejected on these grounds only, however.  In Paragraph 3.1 of the report update, the case officer states that the proposed dwelling is considered suitable in terms of scale, height, massing and footprint, and would not result in any significant harm to neighbouring amenity.  Considers the proposed house to be unnecessarily tall at 7.265m, and together with the detached garage will harm all three neighbouring properties.  A single-storey house or true dormer bungalow would substantially reduce this impact.  Also, including the garage, the proposed dwelling’s footprint is the same as those at Nos. 16 and 17 Greenhills Road, but their gardens are wider and longer, making this proposal out of scale with the plot and seriously oppressive to neighbouring properties.  The Civic Society considers it a ‘heavy and clumsy scheme’.      Finally, the chosen position for the dwelling is just 6m from the rear boundary, for no compelling reason; the Council’s SDP states that houses with clear glass windows should not be positioned within 10.5m of the boundary.

Member debate:

SW:  apologised for not having been on Planning View, but has visited this site before on a previous occasion.  Has grave concerns about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, due to flooding issues in this area.  A previous application was dismissed at appeal, because the proposed garage was not positioned a minimum of 2m from the boundary wall and 8m from the site entrance, to facilitate the efficient movement of overland storm water flow,  in accordance with the engineer’s advice.  Since that time, there have been some significant redevelopment of flood alleviation measures at Cox’s Meadow, lowering the access road for College Gate,  and additional mitigation measures, which have resulted in officers concluding that this proposal will not add to the flood risk.  This view is endorsed by CBC’s engineer, and the recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Ms Helen Woodward, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

College Gate is low-lying basin, vulnerable to surface water flooding of over900mm  - 3 foot – as shown on the flood risk map.  This is water from the sky, not the river; College Gate acts as a catchment area, and CBC engineer’s opinions regarding the  River Chelt are therefore irrelevant.  The report is illogical and unreasonable. Building a garage so close to the weakened flood defence wall makes no sense – it will obstruct the natural course of flood water.  There has been no flow analysis and officer comments are simply based on opinion.  The applicant has offered three absurd mitigation measures: a stepped kerb to facilitate surface water running down to the collection chamber rather than past the garage; installation of a drain to catch the small amount of water run-off; and upgrading of the boundary wall, though not its weak foundations.  The gap for maintenance proposed between the garage and flood defence wall proposed is too narrow.  Members should ask Officers exactly how the River Chelt flood alleviation scheme will reduce the risk of flooding, and ask the Environment Agency for further clarification.  A letter from applicant’s own engineer does not take into account some crucial material considerations, and would therefore urge the Committee to consult with the County Council on the potential effect on surface water of this proposal. 

Mrs Yapp, applicant, in support

The external design of the proposed garage is similar in style to that at No. 5 College Gate, and the building materials match the house and the rest of the College Gate development.  The planning officer recommendation is to permit, based on a positive analysis of the proposal.  His report summarises the flood mitigation measures which have taken place over the past ten years, since 1992 and 2007.  Four neighbours have objected.  Three are concerned about the increased flood risk to their properties, but the comments of the land drainage officer distributed to Members this week confirm that the proposed garage will not increase the flood risk to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillors Parsons and Lillywhite, due to neighbours’ concerns about parking and loss of light.  The officer recommendation is to permit.   

Public Speaking:

Mr Brooking, neighbour, in objection

Lives adjacent to 178 Prestbury Road, and is concerned about loss of daylight to his living space, and increased parking issues on Oakland Avenue, as set out in his letter dated 4^th October. Regarding loss of daylight and sunlight, the tests used by the local authority are set out by the Building Research Establishment, and the 25^o test uses scale drawings and relative distances to establish whether any new development is below 25^o relative to an existing window.    Calculations have been made based on the provided drawings, considering the relative positioning and distances between his kitchen window and the new structure, which offer a figure of 40^o, a significant breach of the test, yet the planning officer has stated that the proposal will ‘not result in unacceptable loss of light’.  Fails to find this statement a realistic and reassuring conclusion, especially as a 6m wall will sit just 4m from his kitchen window.  Regarding parking, Planning Portal Residential Parking Standards require a single 3-bedroomed detached house to have at least two off-road parking spaces.  In fact this proposal has only one.  In addition, the positioning of this space is such that a car cannot be easily manoeuvred into it, due to unrestricted parking along the development frontage, which means this space is only a notional one and unlikely to be of any practical use.  As a result, all vehicles will be parked on the road, adding to the existing congestion.  Finally, this development is a garden grabbing exercise, which takes away amenity space from three properties.

Mr Hill, applicant, in support

Members will be aware that Oakland Avenue is an attractive road with some impressive properties, and also his own, a storage yard with asbestos sheds strewn across it.  Following pre-application discussion 18 months ago, approached the neighbour to the rear of Prestbury Road and agreed that if the outcome was successful, to procure a small parcel of her rear garden to provide the new development with ample amenity space.  As well as the small number of objection letters, mostly relating to parking issues,  has received quite a lot of positive feedback particularly from nearby residents who will welcome the replacement of the unsightly yard with a new dwelling, which is almost a carbon copy of the property directly opposite and acts as a complimentary book end.  Regarding parking, would like to assure local residents that it has always been his intention to have off-road parking; this was expressed in the application but not shown on the original plans and may have caused concern.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

There were none.