The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that related to a resubmission following the refusal of planning permission for a similar, but larger development that was subsequently dismissed at appeal.

The current application sought to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and the conclusions of the Planning Inspector. The redesigned development proposed the erection of a part two, part three storey building to form 26 retirement living apartments to be managed by McCarthy and Stone.

Following notification of the application 112 objections had been received, together with a petition containing 67 signatures. Following amendments to the proposal and a further period of neighbour re-notification, a further 46 letters of objection had been received.

The planning officer brought member’s attention to the Supplementary Information report which stated that in response to concerns raised, the applicant had provided an additional car parking space in order to provide 20 spaces for the proposed 26 apartments. This ratio is the same as for the previously refused scheme where the percentage of the car parking was considered acceptable.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application stating that there had been 112 views expressed on the application without 1 letter of support. Concerns were raised in relation to overlooking, mass and scale and stated that the report failed to cover the planning history and previous refusals properly.

The applicant attended and addressed the Committee stating that they had worked collaboratively on a great design and noted that officers now recommended approval.

Councillor Hilal, spoke as a Local Ward Councillor to the Committee and objected to the application in relation to overdevelopment, traffic issues, lack of car parking, overlooking, scale and massing, ecological issues and loss of wildlife.

Councillor Stanton also addressed Committee as a Ward Member also objecting to the application

Councillor Leech addressed the Committee as a Local Ward Councillor and welcomed the objector’s points made against this scheme. Councillor Leech stated that he objected to the application, raising issues relating to car parking levels, overlooking and privacy, scale and massing, construction traffic and the lack of any mitigation for car parking on nearby roads. He also stated that the existing building should be retained and that there was a need for family housing

Councillor Leech then left the meeting and took no further part in the discussion or decision-making process.

The planning officer stated that the previous application had been refused for three reasons and had these been provided. The Inspector dealing with the appeal concluded that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy or overlooking and the comings and goings, activity and disturbance would not be inappropriate. The officer detailed the use of obscured glazing and distances from the rear boundary and included details as to why the scheme was now acceptable in scale and massing terms including the removal of the four storey elements. It was also clarified that the previous application had not been refused due to a lack of car parking spaces. Affordable housing had been fully tested and was found not viable due to the lesser amount of units but would be re-tested as part of the recommendation for a legal agreement if approved. Also, there was a construction management condition proposed to address these concerns.

The Chair reiterated that the previous scheme was refused for various reasons and the planning officer stated that this previous scheme had an officer’s recommendation of refusal for 3 reasons, but this did not include car parking.

Councillor Lovecy proposed the Committee be move of Minded-to-Refuse on two grounds:

1 – The scale and massing of the scheme - referring to the previous application warrenting the same reason for refusal, Councillor Lovecy conveyed that she felt this assessment still holds weight against this current proposal in its large footprint and dominance owing to its height.

2 – Parking – this was not considered at the previous application appeal as the Committee had not considered it as a reason for refusal. This scheme required a range of parking options and Councillor Lovecy was not convinced by the current submission. The distance to shops and other amenities would not deter the use of vehicles by residents.

Councillor Davies raised concerns in relation to the level of parking proposed.

Councillor Andrews seconded proposal made by Councillor Lovecy of Minded-to-Refuse.

Decision

The Committee agreed the proposal of Minded-to-Refuse, based on the scale and mass of the scheme coupled with the lack of adequate parking and disabled parking spaces.

(Councillor Flanagan declared a personal interest in the item and withdrew from the meeting for the duration taking no part in the discussion or decision-making process).

(Councillor Sadler left during this item and took no part in the discussion or decision-making process).