Agenda item

Public Speaking:

Mr Langdon, neighbour, in objection

Strongly protested about the lack of time for comments on the second amendments to the scheme – was given only five days to consider his response, during which time the planning officer was on holiday.  Also, as the original consultation period ended on 26^th March, the other complainant could not access the website to lodge his objections, which stated that the time limit had expired.  Thought under these circumstances, consideration of this application should have been deferred.  Moving on to the proposed development, thought that in the light of policies BE7 and BE12, the scheme should not be considered.  The applicant requires direct vehicle access to the road at the front, despite having a garage at the rear of his property, and the Officer report did not acknowledge the many residents who do not have the option of using Inkerman Lane.  Said the proposal should be rejected, as by providing a parking space for an individual resident, other residents without their own parking spaces would be deprived of a parking space on the public highway, and prevented from parking on the street as they are entitled to do.

Mr Bacon, applicant, in support

Said he had listened to comments and opinions following his previous applications, and felt that the updated application and design addressed all concerns, being fully supported by Highways, Heritage and Conservation, and Planning Officers.  Regarding highway safety, said St Stephen’s Road already has several properties with driveways – one more would not add to highway safety issues – and with a young son and another baby due, it would be easier to get his family in and out of the car off the highway and away from the traffic.  Said the current frontage of his house was predominantly hardstanding, and had been described by the Appeals Inspector as ‘not particularly attractive’; the new proposal would provide a far more attractive frontage with lawn, a redesigned wall border and substantially more landscaping, and this was supported by the Officers.  Was aware every application should be considered independently, but pointed to numerous examples of dropped kerbs both on St Stephen’s Road and in the vicinity. Said the application was at committee because of its planning history and weight of public opinion against the proposal, but said that the Officer’s report addressed planning issues, and there had been only two responses to the 30 letters sent to neighbours, Echo advert and site notice.  Of the six semi-detached houses on St Stephen’s Road, only one neighbour had objected; two already have dropped kerbs, one has written to support the proposal, and two have expressed verbal support.  Said he and his wife love the Tivoli area and have no intention of doing anything to spoil it, but with 66% of properties on the road already having a drive of some sort, did not feel his proposal was out of character with the road or area.  As previous comments had been addressed and the Officers supported the scheme, hoped that members would follow their advice and vote for approval.

Member debate:

PJ:  appreciated the applicant’s comments and understood his concerns for his young family near a busy road, but was concerned about the first speaker’s comments about access to information on the scheme and opportunity to comment on amendments.

MJC, in response:

-          said this is a procedural matter, and as far as Officers are concerned, the information has been accessible – published on the website for anyone with access to the internet, and available to view in the office, as they are every month;

-          regarding the consultation following amendments to the scheme, said there were some subtle changes to the gates and small trees, and it was at the authority’s discretion to re-consult – the changes could not have generated a different response from neighbours.

KS:  commented that it is often the small applications which arouse most passion and strong views from neighbours.  Thought this a difficult application – anything which might detract from the street scene was not desirable but other houses a couple of doors along already had dropped kerbs and off-street parking.  In view of this, could see no grounds to refuse.

RG:  corrected comments from MJC, regarding papers being viewable online to anyone with access to the internet – this had not been available for periods of time recently, a matter being taken up with the Authority and addressed shortly.  Agreed that this is a difficult application and wondered if it would contravene policy BE7, even though it had the full support of the Heritage and Conservation Officer.  Would listen to the debate before deciding how to vote.

GB:  found it difficult to balance the arguments here, although realised that this is what Members are here for.  Realised that access to the front would be beneficial for the applicant from a child safety point of view, and yet the house backed onto Inkerman Lane, which was surely the safest area to offload children.  Was concerned about precedent, started by No 38 St Stephen’s Road.  If the principle had been to avoid hard-standing all along the road, noted that No 38 now had all hard-standing to the front, and there was nothing to stop the applicant from doing the same once permission had been granted, losing the lawn and greenery.  Had slight concerns about giving approval on the basis that some greenery would be left, if nothing could be done should the applicant later change his mind.

BF:  reminded Members that they had been told on Planning View that the whole issue of the application was the dropped kerb – what the applicant chose to do in his front garden was no concern of theirs.  Could see no reason to refuse, following on from the Inspector’s comments.

HM:  pointed out to Members that the previous application had gone to appeal, and the current proposal addressed all the Inspector’s concerns.

RG:  said BF was wrong, the planning application does related to the landscaping of the garden.  Asked whether permitted development rights could be removed to guarantee the proposed front garden is kept.

PT:  as there is off-road parking to the back where children could be put in and taken out of the car in safety, was puzzled by this application and wondered why it was needed.

MP, in response:

-          said there is access at the rear, but the application must be dealt with on its own merits, and the rear access was not taken into consideration by the Inspector, who stated that the proposal would be acceptable, subject to soft landscaping ;

-          said Members needed to consider whether the proposed access is acceptable;

-          confirmed that a condition could be included to ensure the retention of the lawn.

BD:  asked that this is done - will vote for the proposal if this condition is attached. 

PT:  asked about policy BE7 and how the scheme fitted in with that.

MP, in response:

-          said in his appeal decision, the Inspector made full reference to BE7 with regard to parking on the forecourt, saying that this may be acceptable if some sort of soft landscaping was considered, so that the front garden would not be all hard landscaping – the ‘alignment, shape and lay-out of the hardstanding’ was the only reason for refusal at appeal.

PT:  said if BE7 was no longer relevant, maybe it should be removed from the Local Plan.

MP, in response:

-          said the policy is still relevant but it was felt that soft landscaping would mitigate any harm;

-          reminded Members that the scheme is supported by the Heritage and Conservation Officer.

Vote taken on Officer recommendation to permit with additional condition

13 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT