Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and erection of a six storey building (plus basement) to provide 152 residential units (46 units to comprise extra care accommodation and 25 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 19 x 3 bed and 12 x 4 bed) with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

14.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda, and gave an overview of the history of the site.

14.2  Mrs Meisels spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  Very little time to prepare her objection as she and some of her neighbours did not receive a letter notifying her of the revised application.

§  The proposal was out of proportion with the neighbouring properties and created overlooking to the properties in close vicinity.

§  Loss of daylight and privacy.

§  The number of dwellings was out of context with the space.

§  Insufficient number of car parking spaces for the size of the scheme.

§  Increased noise and traffic in the surrounding area.

§  No recreational areas for children provided.

§  She would suggest only 3 / 4 storeys and more family units and facilities.

14.3  Neil Rowley (Savills) and John Moore (Formation Architects) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The building is currently vacant and in a dilapidated state.

§  They have been in consultation with Planning Officers for the past 12 months, which had resulted in a better scheme being submitted.

§  A public exhibition was held in 2008, displaying the plans for the scheme.

§  The height of the revised scheme is no greater than the previous proposal.

§  The scheme meets with housing needs and provides a number of extra care units.

§  The new scheme was slightly longer, although it had now been split into 3 blocks.

§  1/3 of the units are wheelchair accessible.

§  There will be limited access to the site and private parking to the front of the building.

§  The proposed materials were displayed for Members’ information.

14.4  In response to a query from the Chair regarding consultation, the Planning Officer stated that the consultation had commenced in April 2008 and she was satisfied that a full consultation exercise had been carried out and that responses to the objections received were detailed within the report.

14.5  Reference was made to the comments made by the Design and Conservation team and the Planning Officer explained that responses to these comments were set out in page 263 of the report.

14.6  Concern was raised over the open plan living areas and bedrooms being located off this in a number of units.  In response, the Planning Officer explained that condition 5 of the recommendation addressed this issue by stating that access to bedrooms separated from living areas with open plan kitchens, as the provision of a bedroom coming off open plan living spaces was not considered conducive.  The applicant added that this only concerned a small number of units.

14.7  Concern was also raised over the issue of loss of daylight/sunlight, as identified by the Design and Conservation team.  The Planning Officer referred Members’ attention to page 265, paragraph 6.3.5 of the report, which stated that the results of the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) test highlighted that the internal light levels conformed to BRE guidance and would be adequately well lit through natural means.

14.8  Reference was made to the footprint of the building and Members questioned whether the revised scheme was larger than the previously refused one.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the height of the revised scheme was in line with the previously submitted application, the length of the building was slightly longer and the depth was within 1m of the previous scheme.  She explained that the Inspector had previously agreed the envelope of the building.

14.9  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum which set out additional design comments.  These stated that the massing was deemed ok, much in line with that approved by the appeal Inspector, as was the elevation design which they acknowledged had improved significantly following discussion with the applicants and their architects.

14.10  In response to a query from the Chair regarding the length and width of corridors, the applicant confirmed that the longest length of corridor would be 15m and that they would be 1500mm wide.  He added that 1/3 of the units would be dual aspect.

14.11  Members expressed their concern at the internal layout of a number of units and Councillor Hanson proposed that the item be deferred to allow for revised plans to be submitted, taking into consideration the issues raised.  This was seconded by Councillor Desmond.  The proposal was however not carried; as a larger proportion of Members felt that there was a sufficient enough number of reasons for the application to be refused.

14.12  The Principal Solicitor clearly advised that if the Sub-Committee wished to refuse the application they would have to propose this as a separate recommendation, as it would not be sufficient enough to just vote against the recommendation.

(Councillor Webb voted in favour of the recommendation).

RESOLVED that:-

§  Overdevelopment within the envelope of the building by approximately 20%.

§  Poor internal design and layout, especially for the larger family units.

§  Unconvinced that the current set of plans provided a good standard of accommodation.

§  The open plan living areas with bedrooms located off this was deemed unacceptable.

§  Too many single aspect flats and internal corridors too long.