Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that an addendum report had been circulated earlier in the day and copies had been tabled.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Ms Candace Relf attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Robert Winkley spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of rooftop extensions to existing apartment blocks (Blocks A, B, C, D and F) (known as Nankerville Court, Bradfield House and Cardinal Place) ranging in height from 1 to 2 storeys to provide 37 x apartments (24 x studio/one-bedroom and 13 x two-bedroom) together with private and shared roof terraces. Associated alterations to existing basement level to provide cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

The present application had been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous three reasons for refusal. The Committee were reminded that the previous grounds for refusal had been due to its excessive bulk and mass, failure to represent exceptional design quality and insufficient on-site parking provision.

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and commented that he sympathised with the residents that this application would directly impact on. Councillor L Lyons was disappointed with the housing mix, including the provision of zero affordable homes and also the contribution to open space, green area and recreation, which he thought was negatively affected. It was noted that this application provided for 0.5 parking spaces per apartment which Councillor L Lyons thought was unrealistic to think that people would not use cars, want to park them or use the car club as a viable alternative. Councillor L Lyons said that there was already a huge issue with parking in the surrounding roads and it was thought that this development would cause this to worsen. Councillor L Lyons also commented that he and fellow Councillors had worked hard with the applicant when the site was initially developed to achieve the stepped down approach of the current design and he felt that the proposal would completely change this making it more bulky; it would also see a loss of privacy to some residents.

A number of Committee members shared the Ward Councillor’s concerns. The issue of affordable housing provision was raised a number of times and the Development Manager explained that although frustrating, due process was always followed and the viability was robustly assessed. In this case it was not considered viable. The Planning Officer noted that a late stage viability review was proposed in the recommendations which meant that an assessment would be carried out once building works had completed to see if there was anything to recover regarding affordability provision.

Following further concerns raised by the Committee regarding the design, bulk and mass, with reference to Policy CS21, Planning Officers explained that they felt that the proposal could be justified within context. The Committee were given the example of the Victoria Square development which was not far from the application site and had been considered justifiable within that context.

Further debate ensued on these topics.

Councillor L Lyons proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor L Morales that the application be refused on the grounds of insufficient parking, excessive bulk and mass and failure to represent exceptional design quality.

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 refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), L Lyons and L Morales

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Ashall, G Elson, S Hussain and N Martin.

                                 TOTAL:  4

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the minutes above.