Issue - meetings

(Councillor Smith left the Chamber during the discussion of this item).

Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new part 3, part 8 storey building to provide 36 residential units (6 x 1 bed, 18 x 2 bed, 8 x 3 bed, 4 x 4 bed) along with 4 disabled car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

NB: The application was reported to members of the Planning Sub-Committee on 3 December 2008. At this meeting, members DEFERRED the application to allow them to carry out a visit to the site and similar schemes built by the developer.  The site visit was carried out on 19 December 2008.

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  The applicants circulated samples of the proposed materials, for Members’ information.

6.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum and informed the Sub-Committee that following the previous meeting, where an addendum had outlined changes to the mix of affordable housing to reduce the intermediate units from 24 units to 9 units, the applicant had submitted, that for ease of management, 10 intermediate units would provide the optimal arrangement.  This was an increase from the 9 that had been considered the minimum number of intermediate units, and as such, the Council’s Housing Officer considered this to be acceptable.

6.3  Councillor Akehurst spoke in objection to the scheme, on behalf of residents, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Received many representations from local residents expressing their strong opinions of objection to this application. This was only the second time in his seven years as a Councillor he had attended a Planning Sub-Committee meeting to speak in objection to a scheme.

§  The local residents were not in objection to additional housing in the area but were purely in objection to the 8 storey tower.

§  Felt that the meaningfulness of the consultation seemed to have been lost and wanted to ensure that the concerns raised throughout the consultation period were considered.

§  Felt that the Council should look at ways for section 106 money to be used locally, as a result of loss of amenity for residents.

§  A good relationship between the neighbours and developers was needed.

6.4  Martin Sugarman spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Fully aware that the 8 storey tower was in-line with guidance, however it did not promote quality of life for residents.

§  Felt that the views of residents were being ignored and expressed his objection to the 8 storey tower and residents were especially disappointed as they were a housing association.

§  The tower will create lack of privacy and overshadowing.

§  Lack of communication between the housing association and residents.

§  ISHA should come back with an alternative plan with the tower reduced.

6.5  Justin Kelly and Colin Archer spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  This was not just a re-submission of the previous scheme, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6