Agenda item

JS introduced the application as above.  It is at Committee because CBC is the applicant.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  was on Planning Committee when the works were first approved, and couldn’t understand then why this was only a temporary access – to cope with the bigger machinery, possible vehicle breakdown, and act as an emergency exit.  To retain it is common sense; fully supports the application.

MC:  was also on Committee when this scheme was originally considered, and remembers the challenge to get parking on the site during the construction of the buildings.  If people are going in and out of the cemetery to attend funerals, tend graves etc, would rather have a separate access for service vehicles etc.  The objectors state that this access was always intended to be permanent, but can’t see that this is such a bad idea.  Would ask how it will be controlled?  It is for service access now, but on Planning View noticed a lot of damage to the existing grass area on Imjin Road.  Will this be made good when the construction is complete?  It currently looks a mess.

SC:  to clarify, the purple strip on the drawing represents the proposed road, and the blue road at the top the existing cemetery access road.  From the drawings on the wall, it looks like there are two access roads to the cemetery, the blue to Bouncers Lane, the purple to Imjin Road. What is the difference?  Is one used more than the other?

JS, in response:

-          The purple access is controlled by a gate from the Imjin Road side – the owners (CBC) of the site will have control;

-          The other access is permanent as part of the previous permission, which is why it isn’t being considered in this application.

-           

RH:  for clarity, the gate is the only thing people will see from Kimberley Walk; what is the height of the gate?  The existing gate is as high as the fence.  There are some objections, but a number of residents have asked if they can keep the road, or get it across to the top to allow disabled access.  The gate is proposed; is there pedestrian access?

JP: with reference to SC’s point, the blue road is part of the exit road from crematorium, which operates a one-way system.  The exit road eventually joins gates at Bouncers Lane and is used by mourners and hearses.

JS, in response:

-          To RH, the gates don’t need planning permission because they are less than 1m high, and will be maintained at this height;

-          Doesn’t know about any links to pedestrian access at the top.

RH:  pedestrian access would be beneficial here – at the moment, there is a kissing gate or chicane and no way through.  A footpath up from back of the changing rooms to the top of Priors Field would be useful, and it is a shame that it isn’t included.  Raised this with officers early on, and is disappointed it hasn’t been taken forward, to keep the road open and give additional access.

GB: as Members know, we arenot here to redesign applications, and have to consider what we have before us.  Takes RH’s point, however, and suggests it can be taken up with officers later.

SC:  endorses RH’s comments – access for pedestrians with prams, bikes etc would be a great public benefit.

GB: this can be included as an informative to the applicant.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT