Agenda item

Officers gave a presentation on the above item and made the following points:

·       Details of the application were provided

·       It was noted that there was an error in the application description. The number of parking spaces was 14 (13 with one disabled space), not 8

·       Some changes were proposed to conditions to make implementation easier

·       The site location was shown to the Committee

·       Officers provided details of the site history. There had been a Doctors Surgery on site until it was vacated in 2018 and a retail unit which had been vacated in 2019. A previous application had been approved in May 2020 and was a material consideration

·       Members’ attention was drawn to the nearby existing Malago Greenway cycleway

·       The application was for 36 affordable apartments and upper level deck access

·       Details of the upper floor were shown, together with a 3D image showing the development which was of red brick construction. This was in accordance with the existing character of the area and the urban living SPD

·       There had been 5 objections and I neutral comment – the objections related to the level of parking, the impact on the highway as well as the scale and massing of the development

·       The principle of the scheme was that it contributed to affordable housing. Retail housing was not viable.

·       Whilst the recommendation was for 36 affordable housing units, only 11 of these would be secured for perpetuity via a Section 106 Agreement

·       The transport team considered that the proposed 14 car parking places would be sufficient and would significantly improve the car parking ratio

·       In terms of residential amenity, the site would benefit from the north east corner

·       The building was the same size and massing as the William Hill building and was consistent with window to window distances

·       The fourth floor terrace would be removed and a number of privacy screens included

Officers were recommending approval of  the scheme, together with a travel plan.

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       The purpose of cladding the 4^th Floor in a different material was to enable it to blend in better against the sky from a distance

·       All of the permanently fixed 11 affordable housing units would operate as intermediate rented properties

·       The material of the rear access could be controlled through a condition. However, it had not been possible to insist on gaited access due to the need for highway access

·       There would be a condition requiring a landscaping strategy and plans

·       There was an intention to keep a similar mix on site of between 9 and 11 intermediate rented properties

·       It was not feasible to require the £10,000 donation for car park spaces to operate through a car club since there was existing cycle access through the Malago Cycle route. However, a condition would be put in place to require the developer to sign with a car club. The Transport Officer confirmed that this was a frequently used arrangement that worked well and seemed a good solution in this case

Committee members made the following comments:

·       The proposed screening should address the issue of the impact of the fourth storey on the adjacent screen south of the site

·       Whilst normally it was good to see 100% affordable housing for a scheme, it was disappointing that there was no socially rented accommodation. However, the application could not be refused on this basis

·       Whilst there remained some concerns about the situation at the rear of the property, there were many good elements of the scheme and it should be approved

Councillor Steve Pearce moved, seconded by Councillor Fabian Breckels and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved as per the officer report and the additional conditions proposed in the amendment sheet.