Agenda item

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Committee agreed:

Application would be DEFERRED, in order to review parking arrangements proposed by developer and returned to Planning Committee C.

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the proposal, as outlined in the Officer’s report.

The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

Principle of Development • Housing • Urban Design and Heritage •

Transport Impact • Impact on Adjoining Properties • Sustainable Development • Natural Environment • Planning Obligations

The following members’ question related to: use of current application site.

The Officer confirmed the current application site was not in use.

The applicant addressed the Committee and described the proposal. The applicant discussed: public benefits, design, local consultation, highways, ecological and landscaping enhancements such as: architecture, sustainable energy and biodiversity.

Members’ questions to the applicant, related to: parking.

The applicant advised the Committee that the development would include a circle turntable parking design, operated by key fob. The design would have cars parking in a manner, so that they were always in forward drive, when ready to leave the parking area.

A representative of the Blackheath Society, addressed the Committee with objections to the proposal. The representative discussed: a Planning Inspectorates appeal decision of July 2019, where a prior application was refused; Un-resolved issues that related to the Planning Inspectorates decision. The representative proposed that the current application under consideration, should be refused, or at least deferred and suggested the Committee conduct a site visit.

Members’ questions related to: highway safety and landscaping.

The Officer referred to their presentation slides, to provide further clarification, as outlined in the Officer’s report. The Officer stated that as the proposal was a family dwelling, parking was included as a family were viewed as likely to own a car. The DMTL supported the Officer’s advice and added that the local authority’s highways officer had raised no objections in relation to parking.

During the Member discussion, a Member expressed concern that the proposals parking arrangements breached planning policy. Another Member requested clarification regarding the previous refused application and the current application.

The Officer and DMTL provided clarification to explain the issues that led to the Planning Inspectorate decision regarding the previous application. The DMTL emphasised that the parking was never an issue of concern for the Planning Inspectorate. The DMTL advised that officers considered the resubmitted application had proposal had improved. The Legal Advisor advised the refusal on the current application on the basis of parking, would be difficult to uphold in the event of an appeal. The DMTL supported the Legal Advisor’s advice, by stating there had also been no objection raised by the local authority’s highway officer with regard to highway safety.

A Member raised concerns regarding the proposal’s bin stores and garden waste provisions. The DMTL advised a condition could be implemented to improve on the issues raised by the Member. Following the advice received, the Member raised a motion to approve the development, with conditions added to improve the proposals bin store and garden waste provision. The motion failed 2 in favour and 5 against.

The DMTL cautioned Members with regard to refusal of the application based on concerns that were not raised by the Planning Inspectorate. A Member raised concerns regarding the developments wall and building line issues. The Officer assured the Member the concerns with regard to the wall had been addressed. Another Member requested legal advice.

The Chair decided legal advice would be sought, regarding the concerns raised by the Members. The Chair advised that the meeting would go into closed session, to receive the legal advice.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.39pm. The meeting reconvened at 10.59pm. It was

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Committee agreed:

Application would be DEFERRED, in order to review parking arrangements proposed by developer and returned to Planning Committee C.

The meeting closed at 11.00 pm