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 regarding the erection of a 4-storey building to form 40 no. residential apartments, together with cycle and car parking, bin store, landscaping, and boundary treatments following demolition of existing buildings.

The application related to the erection of a 4-storey residential development comprising 40 affordable apartments, following demolition of an existing business premises together with the provision of car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

Following notification of the application 15 representations have been received,

including 13 objections, 2 in support and 1 neutral response with comments.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the printed report.

An objector attended and addressed the Committee, noting that they owned a local recording studio that had been there for 20 years. The recording studio was close to the proposed site and it was felt that the construction phase of development would create a level of noise that would stop their ability to work. They felt that the noise report provided had not considered their business needs. There were no mitigation measures in place for the noise created during construction for their business. The objector requested that the Committee declined the application, but if they were to approve it then to add strong conditions regarding noise and vibration during construction or that there should be some financial compensation available in order that they could operate from an alternative studio during that noisy time.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, noting that there had been prior engagement with local residents, ward councillors and planning officers before submitting the application. They noted there would be short-term, temporary disruption during construction but that there had been no objection from Environmental Health and the disruption needed to be balanced with the social value of the proposals. Construction timing and activity was proposed to be regulated by conditions from officers. The applicant would register with the considerate constructors’ scheme and liaise with the studio. This was a 100% affordable scheme, which was noted as being much needed. The application would not result in any overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light for its neighbours. Energy for the proposed site would be 100% electric, with no gas used. The level of parking proposed had been deemed acceptable by Highways Officers. The scheme would improve Biodiversity. The applicant’s agent felt this was a much-needed scheme for the area.

The Planning Officer noted that it was key that the applicant was fully aware of the concerns raised by the neighbouring recording studio and had agreed to all points listed within the construction management plan including a communication strategy with neighbouring occupiers and businesses, including the recording studio. This would mean that the recording studio would be pre-warned of noisy activities. The applicant had also confirmed that they would join the considerate contractors scheme. The officer also stated that demolition could take place under a prior approval notice without the level of control available through this planning application process and that works could take place without the need for planning permission which could bring substantial noise and disturbance, such as refurbishment works, and replacing hard standings. It is also the case that the application property could be used for a variety of other uses without the need for planning permission without any control by the Local Planning Authority in relation to hours of operation, outside working, or numbers of HGVs for example. The proposed construction management plan offered reasonable levels of mitigation in this case. It was also stated that the applicant had confirmed that Pad Foundations would be used rather than more intrusive traditional foundation types.

Members raised queries regarding the architecture, biodiversity and the wording of the condition relating to communication between the applicant and the recording studio.

The Director of Planning stated that construction was difficult to control but they, alongside the Chair, could look at the wording regarding the Construction Management Plan and in particular the requirement for a community consultation strategy, and that this should provide detailed time frames for demolition works and additional requirements relating to details of notification of noisy activities..

The Planning Officer stated that negotiation had taken place with the applicant to secure a quality approach to architecture and also clarified that the existing site consisted largely of built form and hard standing and that the proposal included soft landscaping, the planting of five new trees and bio-diversity enhancements.

Councillor Curley moved the Officer’s Recommendation of Approve subject to additional wording within the construction management plan condition.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application, subject the conditions set out in the report, including an amendment to the condition relating to the construction management plan, the wording of which is to be agreed by the Director of Planning and the Chair.