Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the change of use and subdivision of the existing building (A1, A2 and ancillary office use) to form 8x self-contained flats (7x one bed and 1x studio) and erection of a second floor roof extension, two storey rear extension and first floor rear extension following demolition of parts of existing building. The proposal included the formation of a roof terrace, balconies and new window and door openings, alterations to external finishes and associated bin storage, landscaping and cycle storage.

The Committee heard from the Planning Officer that the previous reasons for the prior refusal of scheme had not been overcome and that this was considered an unacceptable form of development. This was in regard to the poor standard of accommodation, overbearing effect to neighbours/ loss of light, height and massing with a detrimental impact on the local area, unacceptable flood risk, the development did not reflect local need made up solely of one bedroom units, the loss of commercial units and the lack of a legal agreement to secure a SAMM contribution.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application and commented that he thought that the applicant had overcome the previous reasons for refusal and disagreed with the Planning Officer’s conclusion of the application.

The Planning Officer offered clarification on the points of the application that they deemed unacceptable. The Planning Officer highlighted the particularly small obscured and possibly sealed windows in at least two of the bedrooms in the development, these were not conventional windows and considered an extremely poor standard of accommodation. Regarding the flood risk the Planning Officer advised that the Council’s own Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer had been heavily involved with the application and did not consider the mitigating proposals to be sufficient. Regarding the character, Eve Road was characterised with 2 storey dwellings and the bulk and massing would be unacceptable. The applicant had not provided any additional information regarding the loss of the existing commercial space or the view that one bedroom apartments did not reflect local need; therefore had not addressed or overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor A Boote, that the application be approved on the grounds that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome by the applicant and that it was an acceptable form of development.

Thomas James, Development Manager, reminded the Committee that this application had been refused by the Planning Committee in 2016 and that in the Planning Officer’s opinion the application before them tonight was of more harm than the 2016 application and had not overcome the reasons for refusal. The Development Manager advised Members that they must consider the application that was in front of them and not propose amendments that would overcome any of the issues. The reasons for refusal were strong and defendable.

Some Members of the Committee did not consider the sole mix of one-bedroom apartments to be an issue and considered that there was a need for these in the area and that a number of other applications had been approved made up of a similar mix. A number of Committee Members did consider the flood risk to be a major issue and agreed that the Committee should accept the expert advice of the Council’s Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A J Boote and S Hussain.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs S Ashall, G Elson, L Lyons, N Martin and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Present but not voting:      Cllrs G Chrystie (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not approved.

The Committee then agreed that the application should be refused, as recommended by the Planning Officer.

Councillor T Aziz asked that his opposition to refusal be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.