Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer noted that a written update had been circulated to the Committee and uploaded to the website in advance of the meeting.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Jeremy Butterworth attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Mike Hooper spoke in support]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of Church Gate, Premier House (both fronting Church Street West) and Nos. 28-37 Vale Farm Road (Incl.) and erection of a building ranging in height from Ground plus 16 storeys to Ground plus 4 storeys to provide 243 residential apartments (Class C3), commercial space (Class E), ancillary spaces, landscaped amenity areas, parking spaces, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and cycle store including refurbishment works to existing playground on Vale Farm Road.

Councillor M Ali, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and asked the Committee to consider this as a non-town centre development as a third of the proposal was not within the town centre boundary and should not be allowed the same concessions that such an application would attract. The proposal would not provide any affordable housing, many of the dwellings only just met the minimum floor space requirement and at 17 storeys it would be higher than any of the surrounding buildings. Councillor M Ali also commented that there was an issue with density, loss of daylight, inadequate separation distance and under provision of parking. The cumulative effect of all these issues would be significant and the development would be incongruous to the surrounding area. Councillor M Ali asked that the Members of the Committee considered refusal of the application.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that he did not see any meaningful engagement with local residents, despite the applicant stating that some had taken place. Councillor T Aziz agreed with his fellow Ward Councillor that there were a number of issues with this application, including height, mass and bulk. He reiterated the point that one third of this application did not fall within the town centre boundary and therefore it should not be considered a town centre application. Councillor T Aziz was unhappy that a number of affordable family units would be demolished to make way for this development, yet not a single affordable unit would be provided on site. He also raised concerns regarding the mix of housing with 70% one-bedroom units and 30% two-bedroom. Councillor T Aziz also commented that amenity, privacy and daylight was an issue.

Members commented that consideration needed to be given to how buildings related to each other and whilst this straddled the town centre boundary it was adjacent to Victorian housing. This development would be significantly taller than those in the surrounding area and the Committee was very concerned that the affordable housing that was currently on site would be absorbed into the proposal, but no replacement would be provided. The impact on affordable homes in the Borough would be minus ten if this development was approved. Most Members agreed with the Ward Councillors comments that the bulk, mass, scale and height of the development was out of scale with the location.

Other Members commented on the loss of daylight for Birchwood House, which would have a huge impact especially as many of these were single aspect dwellings. The Committee commented that forty seven of the surrounding properties windows would be put into shade by the development, they were very concerned about the separation distances and loss of light.

It was noted that this application had been through the Design Review Panel process, however it had attracted criticism. The Committee hoped that in the future developers would look more closely at Planning Policy and not try to stretch the credibility of these to such a degree.

Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor G Cundy to refuse the application based onsize, mass and bulk; loss of affordable housing, density too high, inappropriate housing mix with too many one bedroom units; loss of daylight and overlooking; and no S106 being submitted.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  A Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), G Cundy, S Hussain, L Lyons, N Martin, L Morales and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  9

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.