Consultation Responses. As would be expected for an application of this magnitude, significant statutory and non-statutory consultations have been undertaken with an extensive range of public and private bodies, the results of which are summarised below, with samples of the responses provided as Appendices to the report. Members should note that in the majority of cases, most consultee’s have responded by one letter to both applications. As a consequence the letters of response are reported in detail in respect of both this application and that application relating to the ABP, even though elements of the responses may not be relevant to both applications. Xxxxx Town Council. To date no representations have been received. Llancarfan Community Council. To date no representations have been received. Llanfair Community Council. has expressed strong concerns in respect of both developments on the following grounds: -
Consultation Responses. 3.1 There are no consultation responses in this case.
Consultation Responses a. Scottish Parliament Local Govt and Communities Committee Cal for Evidence on Planning Bill Response submitted within deadline.
Consultation Responses. 3.1 The Council’s Legal Department have stated that the planning condition by itself is adequate, with the Section 52 appearing too restrictive.
Consultation Responses. The request to vary the S.106 has not been the subject of any consultation. The need for consultation with parties beyond the applicant and Metropolitan Police is unnecessary. Consultation with the Environment Agency and with local residents will be undertaken in association with the planning application/approval of details application that will follow the variation of the S.106 agreement to fund the works.
Consultation Responses. Following site and press notices, and notification of surrounding residents, at the time of writing this report 287 letters of comment had been received. All but three of the representations received expressed concerns/reservations against the proposals. The concerns expressed have been addressed where relevant in the corresponding sections of this report (above). In particular, the appraisal has noted the following issues. • The loss of open space has been addressed under section 1 and 5 of the above appraisal. Some residents have expressed that the proposal would result in a 10% loss of open space on the site which would be against the policies of the Council contained within the Harrow Unitary Development Plan and the Harrow Core Strategy. The report above notes that there would be no increase in building footprint on the site, but acknowledges that formal hard and soft play space within the site would reduce, alongside the development of the buildings on space explicitly identified in the development plan. The appraisal above acknowledges that the purpose of the planning system is often to strike and acceptable balance between conflicting interests and policy objectives. In this case, the loss of the playing field which is designated as opens space must be weighed against other policy objectives of the development plan. As outlined, there are considered to be material planning considerations that justify allowing the development on open space. . • The impacts on character and appearance have been addressed under section 2 of the above appraisal. • Comments relating to reduced values of properties abutting the field and compensation are not a material planning considerations which should determine the outcome of the application. • The impacts on residential amenity have considered under section 3 of the above appraisal. • In terms of quality of life, planning policies are aimed geared towards improving quality of life for local communities and in achieving an acceptable balance between conflicting view and opinions. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in a significant change for some local residents in terms of the visual amenity, it is considered that the proposal would not be out of place within the suburban context and through mitigation measures would not result in any unreasonable impacts that would warrant refusal of the application. The expanded school and high quality educational facilities will generate local an...
Consultation Responses. Site is on a busy corner. The addition of 10 flats will increase the traffic problems; 11 Car parking spaces are not sufficient as each flat will have two cars; Proposal would result in overspill parking on already congested neighbouring roads; Access for residents must be maintained during construction; Development should have access onto Headstone Lane not Fernleigh Court – these issues have been addressed in the Traffic and Parking Section of the appraisal Design is clever, but needs to be scaled back; Building is too high and should be a normal two-storey building the same height as Xxxxx Court; No indication of proposed materials – these issues have been addressed in the character and appearance of the area section of the appraisal Density of the building is too high and not compatible with Metroland plan aspiration – this issue has been addressed in the Principle of Development and Housing Provision sections of the appraisal
Consultation Responses. The majority of these are dealt with in the report above. In terms of treating this site with the adjacent former post office site as one development, this can only be given very limited weight, given that the proposal is seeking the re-use of the existing building, and not full redevelopment, and also that the two sites are in completely different ownerships. The applicant has stressed that “The lack of progress on the adjoining site (in terms of securing a planning permission) should not hinder / delay the delivery of compatible development at The Hub”, and Officers would echo these sentiments in terms of securing the re-use of this building as quickly as possible.
Consultation Responses. 4.1 Additional letter from New Romney Town Council to Xxxxx Xxxxx dated 9th September 2015 :- At the recent meeting of the Town Council Planning and Environment Committee Members received a presentation from X X Xxxxxxxxxx of Iceni Projects regarding S106 contributions to be made in respect of planning Applications Y14/1411/SH and Y15/0164/SH. Subsequently at the same meeting, Section 106 contributions were discussed following Member’s perusal of Shepway District Council Report No DC/15/09 (considered by Development Control Committee on 11 August 2015) and, in particular, the appendices thereto. Following discussions it was recommended, and subsequently ratified by Full Council, that a letter be forwarded to both Shepway District Council and Kent County Council requesting that Section 106 monies be ring-fenced for projects within the Parish in negotiation with New Romney Town Council. A similar letter has been forwarded to Kent County Council. On behalf of Members of the aforementioned Committee I look forward to receiving your comments.
Consultation Responses. 3.1 No comments have been received from consultees.
