Agenda item

G Priestley left the room while this item was discussed.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer presented the report and informed Members that since the report was written, a further seven representations had been received, four of which were objections and three that were in support, bringing the total number of representations to 17. 

The Officer then went onto outline the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Kathryn Sather, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Ben McIntyre, Objector

·         Daniel Hale, Applicant

·         Chris Barnes, Architect

Members agreed that although the site was an eyesore at present they were concerned that the current proposal appeared over-development on what was a small site and would have a harmful impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, and that a better solution and design could be found. 

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.    The design, scale, form, and massing of the proposed development would erode the setting of The Green and Fidlers Well and harm the significance of the Bamford Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP2, GSP3, L3 and HC1 and Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5, DMC8 and DMH6. The harm identified would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by public benefits and therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development would be overbearing and have an unacceptable harmful impact upon the residential amenity of occupants of neighbouring properties contrary to Core Strategy policy GPS3 and Development Management policy DMC3.