Minutes:
Grid Ref: 322403.82 307756.16
Valid Date: 01/12/2017
Officer: Tamsin Law
Community Council: Welshpool Town Council
Applicant: Mr Harry Bowen, Mid Wales Property, High Street, Merchants House, Newtown, Powys SY16 2NR
Location: Welshpool Social Club, Bronybuckley, Welshpool, Powys SY21 7NJ
Proposal: Full: Demolition of existing building and erection of 17 no. flats
Application Type: Application for Full Planning Permission
County Councillor G. Breeze spoke as the local representative.
Mr R. Robinson spoke on behalf of Welshpool Town Council.
Mrs M. Reese spoke against the application.
Mr S. Barry spoke on behalf of the Agent.
In response to questions the Highway Authority advised that the proposed development would potentially generate less traffic than the previous use of the site. The number of parking spaces for the development was appropriate. This was considered to be a sustainable development due to its location near the town centre. For such a development, where people could use alternative means of transport, the allowance for car park spaces was less. He advised that the access track belonged to the Council and is not a public highway and that he understands that the social club had used the access track for decades and had a right of way over this. The Solicitor advised the legal convention was that there may be prescriptive rights over land if used over 20 years. However, the Committee should not be concerned with this issue and the Highways Authority had advised that access to the site is adequate.
The Professional Lead Development Management in response to a question advised that the Committee had to consider the elevations and advised that there was less protection in his opinion from a planning policy standpoint for side elevations when compared to front and rear elevations. He indicated that the Committee had to carefully consider the impact of the east elevation on the adjacent bungalow especially in relation to overbearing impact, but Development Management considered that on balance this was acceptable. He added that Development Management considered that this was a sustainable site.
The Committee considered that there was a need for affordable housing in the area and this had to be weighed up against the potential overbearing of part of the development. The Professional Lead Development Management advised, in response to a question about the design, that although design is a subjective matter, Development Management considered that it does fit into the surrounding area.
It was moved and duly seconded that, on balance, to approve the officer’s recommendation and conditions and with it being delegated to the Professional Lead Development Management to add a condition regarding the use of obscure glazing in the windows on the east elevation.
The Chair advised that having listened to the debate, should the motion fall, he asked Members to indicate their reasons for refusal. In response to comments made, the Professional Lead Development Management and Solicitor confirmed that the impact of the scale of the development on neighbour’s properties was an acceptable reason for refusal.
The motion was put to the vote and on the Chair’s casting vote the application was approved.
RESOLVED: |
Reason for decision: |
that the application be granted consent, subject to the conditions set out in the report which is filed with the signed minutes and that it be delegated to the Professional Lead Development Management to add a condition regarding the use of obscure glazing in the windows on the east elevation. |
As officers recommendation as set out in the report which is filed with the signed minutes.
To safeguard the privacy of a neighbouring property. |
Supporting documents: