Demolition of two dwellings and one outbuilding. Construction of one four storey flatted development comprising a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed units totalling 14 flats, and one three to three and a half storey terrace comprising 9 no. 3 bedroom houses. Construction of associated landscaping works. (Amended layout received 05.03.2021)

In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor David Gulland declared that he had previously had a commercial relationship with the owner of Clayhill Lodge, but that he came to the meeting with an open mind and without predisposition or predetermination.

Description

Demolition of two dwellings and one outbuilding. Construction of one four storey flatted development comprising a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed units totalling 14 flats, and one three to three and a half storey terrace comprising 9 no. 3 bedroom houses. Construction of associated landscaping works. (Amended layout received 05.03.2021)

Decision

The Committee noted a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer.

Following consideration, the Committee resolved that:

The Application be REFUSED for the below following reasons:

(1)          The proposal does not satisfactorily demonstrate that affordable housing cannot be viably secured on the Application Site, failing to comply with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy (2007)

(2)          The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the Application Site, with a high proportion of built form and limited amenity space. The intensification of development would erode the openness and low-density qualities of the Stamford Green Conservation Area. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It would fail to comply with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, NPPF Policies, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM8 and DM9 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(3)          The proposal would not fully meet internal space standards or minimum private amenity space requirements, with constrained private amenity spaces that would unlikely be usable for future residents. The proposal would give rise to issues of overlooking and loss or privacy, as a result of balconies on units 10, 16 and 22, overlooking terraced houses. The proposal conflicts with Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Development Management Polices Document (2015) and The Nationally Described Space Standards (March 2015).

(4)          The proposal fails to provide adequate amenity space for considered tree planting and growth, failing to ensure the longevity of tree and planting establishment, due to the overdevelopment of the Application Site, resulting in constrained amenity spaces. The proposal conflicts with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(5)          In the absence of updated Ecological surveys, the proposal could cause harm to protected species as identified under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The proposal also fails to accord with Policy DM4 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(6)          The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to provide refuse and recycling collections to residential units within the Borough. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be accessed and serviced in the long-term by the Local Planning Authority’s Refuse and Waste Vehicles, contrary to Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Annex 2 of the Council’s Revised Sustainable Design SPD (2016).

Informatives

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23