The Chair informed the committee that Items 3 and 4 will be discussed together and therefore the speakers will be given an extension on their speaking time to discuss both applications.   However, the applications will be voted on separately.

Mr Hasselgren, an objector, was in attendance and addressed the committee setting out his concerns objections to the application.  With regard to the area adjoining 61 the issue of the height of the fence did not apply,

Mrs Cassels, a member of the Residents Association, was in attendance and addressed the committee setting out the Residents Associations objections to the application.

Mr Lipinski, the Applicant’s Agent, was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke in support of the resident’s objection to this application and stated that Planning Permission was originally refused for lack of amenity space. Concerns were raised over the changing of a semi rural estate, over the loss and ownership of amenity green space, size of properties and flooding/drainage.   The Council has maintained the land as open space.  The area of the two applications comprise 57% of the amenity green

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Aspinell and SECONDED by Cllr Baker to refuse the application.

The motion was CARRIED.

For:                 Cllrs Aspinell, Baker, Carter, Cloke, Mrs Henwood, Hirst, Mrs                        Hones, Newberry, Morrissey, Mynott and Parker (11)

Against:         (0)

Abstain:         (0)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that planning permission is refused.  The existing use of the application site has been an amenity green open space for the residents of the Flowers estate for over 40 years and is a safe public space for children, young people and dog walkers. The proposed development do not outweigh the harm from the loss of the amenity.