Page 47 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

th
6.13 These were further tweaked following WD’s further comments of 18 July
rd
2019 with a final issue made for formal substitution on 23 July 2019 (final
masterplan, Appendix T) as the design and layout were now agreed with the
Council.

Officers Report

6.14 The Urban Designer’s Summary and Overall Assessment in the Report to
Committee dated 19 September 2019 (excerpt Appendix U) states that, ‘this
application positively responds to the refused scheme for 71 dwellings.’ It goes
on, ‘the scheme represents a high density for its edge of settlement location, but
this is justified by the 50+ allocation in the AWNP,’ and although, ‘the intensive
use of the site does not reflect the predominant lower density character of the
area…is not dissimilar to the typology of the existing blocks of flats on the
adjacent site.’ As regards the aesthetic approach, WD says, ‘The contemporary
architecture is a contrast to much of the surrounding buildings but is considered
acceptable as the facades are well organised and there is little inter-visibility
with the surrounds.’ In his conclusion, and with reference to the Development
Plan Policy DP26: Character and Design, the Urban Design Officer raises no
objection to the scheme.

6.15 The Planning Applications Team Leader and author of the Officers Report,
Steve King, ‘agrees with the comments that have been made [by the Urban
Designer].’ He confirms, ‘the proposed layout is reasonable and responds to the
constraints around the site,’ and, ‘the elevations are considered to be well-
designed.’ In SK’s overall conclusions on design and layout, ‘it is considered in
their own right the proposed development is reasonable in terms of the design
of the buildings.’ And finally, regarding scale and character, he says, ‘whilst it
could be said that this conflicts with elements of the Neighbourhood Plan policy
it should be recognised that there is a substantial building on the site at present
and the replacement buildings are of greater architectural merit.’

1809 Appeal Hearing Statement_FINAL_191212 Page 13 of 17
Bates No 000046