Agenda item

Erection of 3 no. flats on land adjacent to 4 St Pauls Drive for Mr and Mrs Clark

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Lawrence Walker and
Peter Greenbank addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.)

Mr. Walker spoke in objection to the application.  He advised Members that he was a resident of St. Pauls Drive and when weddings and funerals were taking place at St. Pauls Church, parking on the Drive was a nightmare, with cars parked thoughtlessly across driveways.  The proposed block of flats would create even more chaos, with at least 6 additional vehicles and, when social events were taking place, up to 15 to 20 additional vehicles.  If St. Pauls Church was permitted to extend, parking would be even worse in future.  Parking in connection with children attending Ripley St. Thomas School and St. Pauls Junior School caused additional problems.  St. Pauls Drive was unique to the area and residents were proud of their homes and gardens.  The proposal was out of keeping with the existing buildings.  There was already an abundance of student accommodation in the area.  He requested that the application be rejected to allow residents to see their time out in peace and security.

Peter Greenbank spoke in objection to the application and informed Members that he was a resident of St. Pauls Drive and fully endorsed the comments of the previous speaker.  Residents closest to the proposed development had been in occupancy for an average of 35 years.  The proposal had caused stress and anxiety amongst residents, and the impact of the development would create considerable disruption.  He spoke on behalf of residents generally when he said that he could not see how such a development would blend in.  The flats were aimed at students and nurses, who worked unsociable hours.  Such a lifestyle would cause problems in the area.  Subsidence had occurred at No. 4 and he questioned whether the land would be suitable for the proposed development.  The development would impact on the light to the lounge of the adjacent property.  Residents had given time and attention to their properties and gardens.  If the flats were let, an absentee landlord would not be concerned about their upkeep.  He had only found out about today’s meeting as a result of a request to Planning Services for a progress report, and more residents would have been present to voice an opinion had they known about the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Helme:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the report:

1.         Overdevelopment of the site.

2.         Detrimental to the street scene and the character and appearance of the locality.

3.         Injurious to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

4.         Inadequate off street parking and cycle storage.

5.         No contamination desk top study submitted.