Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following point as part of the presentation:

·       The site was not located in the Conservation Area

·       The development was a mix of buildings both commercial and industrial

·       Different views of the site were provided, including an electricity sub-station at 68 to 70 Church Road

·       Two rounds of consultation had been taken with 14 objections, followed by a further 7. Concerns raised by objectors included the issues of height, scale and massing

·       Following the omission of the second floor from the original proposal, this had reduced the size of the proposed development.

·       Measures had also been proposed to add additional lighting to the first floor and to prevent overlooking

·       The views from the north of the site for the proposed development showed the separation distances

·       The development would be car free. Previous developments had not been refused on transport grounds

·       Officers recommended approval for this Planning Application

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

·       Subject to the proposed changes relating to lighting, the development could be approved. The proposed arrangements for the entrance to the door of the flats and specification would be an advice note to the applicants who were aware of the design requirements

·       The Coal Authority did not object to the proposed development. It was noted that the development was in a high risk coal mining area. However, following a review of this site, this was not considered a reason to refuse the application. However, the Committee might deem it appropriate to provide an Advice Note for this application

·       Councillors’ concerns about the possibility of fire in the chimney were noted. However, neither the Fire Authority nor Health Authority had raised any objections

·       The applicant was proposing an in fill timber panel for the development with high window and roof lights. They had also submitted a landscaping scheme

·       It was not yet clear whether or not the property would be rented out or sold

Councillors made the following comments:

·       This was a past coal mining area and all housing required a survey first to assess whether or not it would be suitable. Measures were in place to deal with this issue

·       The site had been an eyesore since the 1990’s and empty for a long time. Whilst the exact location was not perfect, it was a huge improvement. The proposed curved style of building suited the development well

·       The proposal was good subject to an advice note being added to recommend that the developer carried out a full coal mining assessment survey on the site

·       This development was a good mixed use of employment and space and could breathe new life into the area

Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend moved, seconded by Councillor Guy Poultney and it was

RESOLVED:  that the application be approved subject to the conditions included in the report and the proposed amendment to Condition 26 set out in the Amendment Sheet, with an additional Advice Note also to be included urging a detailed and thorough coal mining assessment  prior to development of the site (unanimously of those in attendance – 7 for, 0 against).