Agenda item

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/01212/FUL in respect of Demolition, ‘Change of Use’, alterations and erection of 4 no. dwellings (Class C3) and associated works, on land to rear of 37 to 39 King Street, Mortimer
2. Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.
3. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Graham Bridgman and Andrew Richardson Parish/Town Council representative, Councillor Nick Carter, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4. Graham Bridgman addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council Representative

5. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • The Development had been considered at the Parish Planning Committee, and Members had given their comments. However, the application had not been seen by the Parish Council as part of the initial design process prior to the application being submitted.

Ward Member Representation

6. Councillor Nick Carter addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7. Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • Officers noted that the Case Officer had provided a comprehensive assessment regarding public amenity.
   • Officers noted that the public engagement aspect of the NDP’s Building for Life policy was a pre-planning requirement which applicants were recommended to comply with, rather than required to comply with.
   • Officers noted that the applicant did not seek pre-application advice for the application, at which that recommendation could have been highlighted. Officers noted that it would not be considered a strong potential reason for refusal.
   • Officers noted that if the application was close to or did comply with Building for Life, then it effectively sufficiently met the requirements of that policy for Officers to maintain a recommendation of approval.
   • Officers noted that a large fire appliance would be able to turn with the prescribed parking spaces in use.
   • Officers noted that all the parking spaces complied with the minimum standards of 2.4 x 4.8, with spaces in front of the carports made wider to allow movement between them.
   • Officers noted that the road access from King Street to the rear of the site would not be adopted, the waste service would service the site, there was a bin collection area agreed with the waste service.
   • Officers noted that Mortimer should have been referred to as suburban, but it was village with a settlement boundary and the principle of further residential development was considered acceptable.
   • Officers noted that the density of the development was in keeping with the grain of development in the surrounding area.
   • Officers noted that the site was within the settlement boundary, and there were no overlooking relationships that would be unusual within the site, and that the case officer had provided an assessment of those relationships against the recommendations.
   • Officers noted that there would be a standard agreement seeking a requirement that financial contributions were made over a number of years to a designated Biodiversity net gain site in order to offset the failure of the site to provide a 10% Biodiversity net gain, for an equivalent amount of contribution to the 10% net gain.
   • Officers noted that for plots 1 and 2 there were only 2 spaces, rather than 2.5, however Officers considered that there were other visitor spaces nearby, and residents may form informal parking spaces. Officers considered the number of parking spaces satisfactory in planning terms.
   • Officers stated that parking spaces had been formalised for the flats on Kings Street, and noted that there were 2 spaces for each flat.

Debate

9. Councillor Jeremy Cottam opened the debate by stating that the area needed redevelopment and considered the plans acceptable and supported the development.
10. Councillor Richard Somner noted the concerns raised about overlooking and noted that the development would be a vast improvement on the current condition of the site.
11. Councillor Justin Pemberton noted that local residents would welcome the normalisation of parking. It was unfortunate that the development had not followed all the recommendations of the Local Parishes neighbourhood development plan, but did not consider it a strong enough reason to vote against granting approval. Councillor Pemberton stated that he would propose to approve the application with the inclusion of a Biodiversity net gain Section 106 agreement.
12. Councillor Geoff Mayes noted concern regarding the amount of parking spaces to the number of bedrooms.
13. Councillor Paul Kander noted the inclusion of visitor parking spaces
14. Councillor Justin Pemberton proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report/refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander
15. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Justin Pemberton, seconded by Councillor Paul Kander to refuse/grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the first completion of a s106 obligation to ensure appropriate off site mitigation is put in place to achieve a minimum 10% uplift in BNG for the site, within 6 months of the date of this resolution. Subject to the conditions as on the agenda and the update sheet. If the s106 obligation is not agreed within the specified time period the application be refused.