Issue - meetings

The committee considered an application for the erection of part five storey, part four storey building containing twenty nine apartments with car parking, cycle storage, landscaping and associated works following demolition of an existing building in use as a car sales and MOT and servicing centre.

Following a question from Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, the Planning Officer advised that there was a mix of six one-bedroom units and twenty three two-bedroom units; twelve of these would be affordable units with eight for rental and four for shared ownership.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that he thought that this was a much better scheme than was previously refused and the proposed set back scheme was much more acceptable.

Following a request for clarity on the amenity space, the Planning Officer explained that the two units on the ground floor would have an area of private amenity space and the others would have access to a balcony or roof terrace. There would also be a 440 sqm. area of shared amenity space to the north west of the site for the use of all residents.

Some Members were pleased to see this brownfield site proposed for development and the reduction in height of the building.

There had been a representation regarding the proposed entrance to the car park which Members sought further clarity on. The Planning Officer confirmed that SCC had been consulted on highway safety and no concerns had been raised.

The Chairman queried whether a design review had taken place for this application to consider whether the design was of exceptional quality. The Planning Officer commented that the application had not been considered by a design review panel, however the front elevation did include details which would be considered exceptional quality and it was confirmed that the inspector had not raised any issues regarding the appearance of the building.

Following a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that there was not considered to be any overlooking impact from the roof terrace.

The Chairman commented that due to the size of some of the units proposed, it was likely that these would be occupied by families. Currently there was not a landscaping scheme that included provision for children or that would prevent them from running out into the road; the Chairman questioned whether we could ensure that the amenity space was considered safe for children through the use of conditions. Following discussion on this point, it was noted that boundary treatments would be considered under condition 5 which could consider the safety of the amenity space boundary. Thomas James, Development Manager, suggested that it would be possible to amend condition 4 to allow for a suitable area children’s to be provided as part of the amenity space. The Committee agreed that Planning Officers would amend condition 4 to include appropriate wording.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions, including the amendments noted in these minutes, and Section 106 Agreement.