Issue - meetings

Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (Minor alterations to building) and vary condition 9 (by removing the requirement of marking of 1 parking bay for people with disability) of planning permission 2006/2589 dated 15.05.2007 (for the construction of a five-storey building consisting of 18 units (4 x 1 bed, 9 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed) together with the provision of 353m2 of retail (Class A1) floorspace at ground floor level.

10.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  The addendum circulated to Members at the meeting included a copy of a previous report to the Sub-Committee on this application.

10.2  Rob Grantham (Contractor) was in attendance and the Chair asked him to clarify how the drawings had changed since the previous application was approved.

10.3  Rob Grantham explained that the changes to the drawings were mainly as a result of determining that the site had unsupportive foundations and therefore a lightweight building had to be built instead.  This was considered a minor change and the main change was a loss of a disabled parking space.  He was also asked by the applicant for a variation of the TMO within the S106 agreement, to propose a bond of £3,000 to cover the costs of the TMO.

10.4  In response to a question from the Chair asking why the building was now 1 metre than the scheme that was previously agreed, Rob Grantham explained that they had consulted the planning department and it was not viewed as a major issue when the drawings were submitted.  It was confirmed that the new drawings were submitted in November 2007.  It was also identified that a different architect had been brought in since the scheme had been approved.

10.5  The Chair asked the Planning Officer to clarify all the changes to the scheme previously approved.  The Planning Officer identified these as follows:-

§  Loss of the disabled parking bay, due to the change to the loading bay entrance.

§  Internal wall and ramp been added to the ground floor retail outlet.

§  The 18 residential units to remain.  Re-arrangement of the sizing of the residential units, some smaller/larger, which all still conform to building regulations.

§  The overall height of the building is 58m higher than previously agreed.

§  Some of the windows re-aligned.

10.6  Members wished to clarify whether the changes identified were sufficient enough to object to.  The Interim Head of Regulatory Services stated that the changes were felt to be of a marginal nature and that in his opinion any move to get the building demolished would be highly unsuccessful at appeal.  He added that it was not unusual for a final building to not be identical to he agreed plans and for a different architect to be brought in at a later stage.  It was a case of judgement and for the Sub-Committee to consider how significant the amendments were to the approved plans.

10.7  Councillor Desmond asked the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10