This application has been referred to the Planning and Licensing Committee at the request of Cllr Sarah Cloke for the following reasons:

In the planning statement associated with this application the developer cites (policy) BE14 in our new LDP and reminds us that developments should safeguard the living conditions of future occupants. However, they fail to cite the full statement which is item J of BE14: safeguard the living conditions of future occupants of the developmentand adjacent residents.

The alterations to the development disregard the living conditions of adjacent residents as follows:

1. Relocation of bin store and bike shed now mean these elements of the development will abut directly onto the rear of 2 Fairfield Road. Planned tree planting to form a barrier seems to have been removed from between the store and 2 Fairfield Road from what I can discern of the plans. We believe the adjustments should retain a planted barrier and in LDP 8.45 it states Trees, woodlands, hedges and hedgerows, wherever appropriate, should be incorporated within a landscape scheme. Since this was incorporated before it is unacceptable this has now been removed/downscaled. Furthermore, the noise and disruption of residents from 20 apartments entering the binstore regularly should not be underestimated. An alternative location should be soughtand if not available measures to prevent door noise and transmission of smells into adjacent neighbours should be taken.

2. The reduction of car parking spaces from 14 to 12 is also unacceptable. The plan was originally approved for 12 apartments with 14 spaces, now 20 apartments with 12 spaces. Despite proximity to the train station, it is likely more than 50% of residents (even assuming only 1 adult per apartment which seems unlikely will want to park cars, not to mention visitors etc. Fairfield road is a narrow cul-de-sac that already suffers from antisocial parking issues that will only be worsened by this step. Recently a fire engine was not able to access the street to attend to an emergency. The LDP part 5.111 states "b. the type of development (fringe site, infill site, etc.) - infill sites are much more likely to be located in areas with existing travel patterns, behaviours and

existing controls, and may be less flexible" This small street has already seen huge over development around it with no consideration to the ever-worsening access issues that existing residents are suffering.

Mr Cook presented the application to committee which included amendments to the published report (namely, drawing number revisions and additional and revised conditions).

A statement was read by the Chair from Ms Cook, resident, objecting to the application.

Ms Marrocco, Agent for the applicant, addressed the committee.

Cllr Cloke, Ward Councillor, spoke regarding significant access issues in the area, but was pleased that the reasons for her referral had been addressed by the developer, namely planting between the bin store and street area, soft closing doors to minimise noise and the 2 additional parking spaces.

Cllr Bridge MOVED and Cllr Barber SECONDED that the application be APROVED.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cuthbert, Gelderbloem, Hones, Laplain, Parker, Sankey, Tanner, Wiles (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Mynott (1)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the conditions outlined within the report and amendments referenced within the presentation.