Post date: Jul 06, 2012 7:20:25 PM
The decision from the Plans Sub-Committee was a unanimous rejection.
The applicants did not speak. However, speaking on their behalf was Mr Alan Gunne-Jones. He was the main spokesman for L&Q at the Inspectorate’s Hearing on 24th May 2012, regarding the proposed development at 86-94 High Street (ref:APP/G5180/A/11/2167690). It is worth noting that the site of this application is adjacent to that of L&Q’s.
Mr Gunne-Jones tried to tell the councillors that the services to the site would not be a problem and the only impact on the council’s policy was H7 (impact on the residential environment) and that there was no impact on backland development or the surrounding area. One of the councillors asked if the access was from the High Street. He also asked what the land was currently used for. Mr Gunne-Jones mistakenly said that access was from the High Street and that the land was currently part of the applicant’s garden, to which the councillor said it didn't look like it. It was at this point that neighbours wondered what site they were actually talking about! Later, another councillor clarified that the access was from Church Avenue.
Two councillors spoke against the scheme, one of whom said it was a prime example of a backland/garden development, and also said some of the trees would be destroyed and would spoil the woodland. It was an inappropriate development.
Councillor Wells wasn't there but his objection was noted.
They then took a vote and it was unanimously refused.