Agenda 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 flats, 18 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 3 bed flats, 6 x 3 bed houses, 1 x 4 bed flat and 3 x 4 bed houses), along with 4 disabled car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

9.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.

9.2  Martin Sugarman and Leslie Mapp spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are as follows:

§  Recognise the need for more affordable housing in the area but strongly oppose the tower block.

§  Located on the edge of the conservation area, feels the design is unsuitable and out of character with the surrounding area. 

§  Only given 3 working days notice of the meeting.

§  Previously submitted a petition which had not been taken into consideration.

§  Happy with the rest of the development but would like to see the tower block reduced to 3-4 floors.

§  The tower block would create considerable overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

§  The report only mentioned Shakespeare House and concern was raised that at least 2 neighbouring properties had been ignored.

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

§  There was a need for affordable housing in the area and the development addresses this need and provides a more appropriate residential mix, with no single aspect units.

§  They had already invested heavily in the adjoining buildings.

§  A number of local exhibitions were held to inform residents of the proposals and they had also been involved in pre-application discussions with planning officers since 2007.

§  The surrounding buildings are already between 6 and 10 storeys high.

§  The number of units had already been reduced from 41 to 36 and the height of the lower units had also been reduced.

9.4  Kevin Moore felt that the design of the proposed development was disappointing and of a high enough standard for the surrounding area.  In response, the Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that given the setting he was of the opinion that the area could cope with the 8 storey tower proposed and that the outstanding issues from the previously withdrawn application had now been resolved.

9.5  Reference was made to the petition and the Planning Officer stated that the petition had been received for the previous application.

9.6  The Planning Officer referred Members’ attention to the addendum which identified that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment submitted also assessed the impact of the development on Pilgrims Lodge (55 Lyme Grove).  It was considered that the tower portion of the development was sufficient distance from surrounding properties, including being at least 14 metres from the narrow front elevation of Pilgrims Lodge.

9.7  The Chair asked about the materials proposed and the Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that the conservation team agreed with the materials, in principle, and that the materials would be submitted, in writing, before any work commences on site.

9.8  The Chair asked whether rain water harvesting was being provided and the architect agreed, in principle, for best endeavours to be made to provide rain water harvesting.  The Chair requested that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

9.9  Councillor Webb stated that she would like the opportunity to view other similar buildings to see how they worked, especially with regard to the family units.

9.10  Councillor Desmond proposed that the item be DEFERRED to allow Members to attend a site visit to view similar schemes before considering the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Webb.

(Councillor Stauber was not present for the discussion of this item).

(Councillors Sharer and Bell voted against the recommendation).

RESOLVED that:-