Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a four storey building comprising five self-contained flats (four x one-bedroom and one x two-bedroom) and a ground floor commercial unit for flexible A1 (retail) and B1(a) (office) use with associated refuse bin and cycle storage.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, disagreed with the Planning Officers proposal to refuse this application and thought that this site needed to be developed as it had been vacant for a very long time. He noted that he did have sympathy for the residents in the flats at the rear of the plot, who would be affected by loss of light.

Following some questions from Members, the Planning Officer advised that the site had been vacant for decades and thought that originally a chapel was located on the site. At the time the building at the rear was converted into flats, the site was vacant. The Planning Officer explained that the lower two floors of the building at the rear would be severely impacted by the loss of light and many of these rooms were single aspect living spaces.

Some Members liked the modifications that had been made by the applicant regarding the stepping up at the back; however it was noted that despite the amendments and reductions on the proposed scheme, which had been reduced and amended as much as possible at the rear, there would still be a detrimental impact upon some ground floor flats at the rear of the proposed development.

Some Members commented that it was obvious from the street scene that there should be something on the vacant site and that this development would considerably improve the visual impact in this conservation area.

Some Members commented that despite the attraction of the design, the Committee should support the Officers recommendation to refuse as the significant loss of daylight to the flats at the rear of the site would go against Planning Policy.

Some Members thought it was unfortunate that the building at the rear had been developed whilst the site was vacant. Following a query, the Planning Officer advised that although that development was carried out under permitted development rights the Committee must give it the same weight when considering the impact the proposed development would have on these flats. The development was completely lawful and was carried out as a prior approval application under permitted development.

The Planning Officer commented that the Committee should consider whether or not any positive aspects of the development overcame any harm to the building at the rear.

Following a query from Committee Members, Thomas James commented that given the constrained nature of the site there could be grounds for the Committee to ask for a Construction Management Plan if the application was approved. Councillor L Morales proposed and Councillor S Hussain duly seconded the motion to add a condition regarding a Construction Management Plan should the application be approved; the Committee agreed.

Following a query raised regarding the rights of taxis to continue to park near the site once construction was underway (if approved) the Planning Officer confirmed that this was not a planning matter.

Councillor T Aziz proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor L Lyons that the application should be approved.

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 Boote, G Chrystie, S Hussain and L Lyons.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              Cllr Elson

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Ashall and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED that the planning application be granted (delegated authority to Development Manager to draft appropriate conditions and the additional condition noted in these minutes.)