Issue - meetings

It was proposed by Councillor Joyce Pritchard and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:

“That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  all 13 Councillors  voted  in  favour, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal would result in a partial loss of allocated open space without sufficient justification for the quantum of development required or adequate measures to mitigate or compensate for the loss. Therefore it is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 97, saved Local Plan policy E29, Development Management DPD policies DM25 and DM26, emerging Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD Policies SC3 and SC4, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policy DM43.

2.      The proposal seeks to provide an additional 124 car parking spaces without adequate justification for this level of provision. Furthermore, it has not been supported by any adequate measures to encourage more sustainable forms of travel. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 103, 108 to 111, Development Management DPD policies DM20 to DM23, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM60 to DM63.

3.      The proposed layout would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and vehicles to the detriment of pedestrian safety. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 97, 102, 108, 110 and 127, Development Management DPD policies DM21 and DM35, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM29, DM60 and DM61.

4.      The application has been submitted without any details of percolation testing, so it is not possible to assess the impacts of the proposal on surface water run-off or to assess the risk of flooding within the site or elsewhere. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 163, Development Management DPD policy DM39, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM34.