Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item. The application is for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site for 146 residential units, including apartments and houses (Use Class C3), with associated car parking, landscaping and works. (Major application)

The Planning Obligations Manager summarised the Viability and Affordable Housing position.

The Project Manager, Sustainability summarised the sustainable design and energy strategy aspects of the application.

Answers for clarification:

·      The application is for 100% affordable dwellings, the BCC Policies require up to 30% affordable dwellings with no public funding – i.e. at  the developer’s expense; although there would normally be a S106 agreement to secure affordable dwellings, as the Officer recommendation is to refuse the applicationthere is currently not a Section 106 Agreement in place to secure the 32 affordable housing dwellings proposed (22%)

·      If the applicant wished to appeal the refusal, the lack of affordable housing reason could be overcome by the applicant and the Council concluding a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing, and presenting it to the Inspector prior to the subsequent appeal

·      Although residents would be able to choose their energy suppliers on the open market, it is considered that electrical heating is going to be more expensive than other forms of heating

·      Heat hierarchy measures should have been included in the design of the development from the start; it is considered that other forms of providing heat are technically feasible

·      All grant money is public sector funding; only S106 units are provided at the developer’s expense

·      If individual heat pumps were provided these could be switched off; this is more difficult to do if a communal heating system is provided

·      An air quality assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the effects of local traffic on the air quality for future residents would be acceptable; the development is set back from Bath Road by circa 8 metres

·      The relationship between Blocks A and B is not considered to be acceptable, Block B would be located between 2 and 13 metres from the rear elevation of Block A of which both elevations feature windows. The proposed distance between flats would be unacceptable and would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking for future occupiers. The amenity value of the courtyard space between Block A and Block B is also considered to be compromised

·      There are no specific rules about the density of developments, the Bath Road site is 0.7 hectares in area, this site was allocated for 85 dwellings in the Local Plan, which would be 121 dwellings per hectare; the pre-application enquiry was for 121 dwellings, which would be 172 dwellings per hectare; the application is for 146 dwellings which is 209 dwellings per hectare

Debate:

·      Members had various concerns about a number of aspects relating to the application including the heating system proposed, the relationship between Blocks A and B, and aspects of the design

·      It was noted that this is a 100% affordable housing scheme

·      Members recognised the benefits of delivering more housing and had mixed views on the issues of design and heat hierarchy compliance, but wanted to find a solution

The Head of DevelopmentManagement reminded Members if they refused the application on limited grounds they could not then go back to other issues. If a decision on the application is deferred it would enable Officers to re-open discussions with the applicant but it was important to manage expectations.

Councillor Hickman moved the Officer Recommendation for refusal.

Councillor Shah seconded this Motion.

On being put to the Vote it was LOST voting was 5 for, 6 against.

Councillor Breckels moved that a decision on the application be deferred pending compliance with Heat Hierarchy measures, the amenity space and relationship between Blocks A and B being improved, whilst recognising that a  S106 agreement relating to affordable housing would ultimately be forthcoming.

Councillor Smith added that wider design issues including the long corridors should also be improved.

Councillor Stevens stated that light entering the dwellings should be improved.

Councillor Stevens then seconded the Motion put by Councillor Breckels and added to by Councillor Smith and himself.

On being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (voting 8 for, 3 against) that a decision on the application be deferred until a future Meeting of the Committee pending compliance with Heat Hierarchy measures, the amenity space and relationship between Blocks A and B being improved,  wider design issues including the long corridors and light entering the dwellings being improved.

Councillor Shah left the Meeting.