Agenda item

Planning Officers made the following points during their presentation for this report:

·       Details of the application were provided including views of the current site proposed development from various directions

·       A comparison was provided between the original proposed scheme and the new scheme

·       The shadowing diagram that had originally been requested had now been provided. However, they did not make any significant change to officers’ recommendations

·       In the event that the application was approved, it would require a condition due to change in the layout

·       Although this application included improvements to the scheme, officers concluded that these were still outweighed by the visual impact of the scheme

·       Officers recommended refusal on the grounds of the design impact on the surrounding area and the flats at the 2^nd floor level, as well as the impact on neighbouring properties

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

·       It was noted that the building at Carpenters Place at the other end of the square had previously been approved at Committee

·       If this application was approved, a Construction Management Plan delegated to officers was recommended to limit the highway network. There was currently very little information concerning the construction phase

·       Officers had taken account of the complete merits of the scheme and felt that the revised scheme would still have an unacceptable impact

·       Due to the number of comments received and a petition, officers had considered that it should be submitted to committee for consideration

·       The height of the building would be in comparison with the roof extension

·       The site had historically been a house but the application indicated that it had been used for storage. The possibility of this usage being regularised was a factor for the Committee to consider in making its decision. Number 10 had been built as a detached property and had previously been a post office. The buildings were on the footprint of the existing property

·       The two objections to the property were from neighbours

·       Officers could not anticipate whether or not the proposed change in use from single dwelling to C3 commercial use was likely to succeed

·       In the event that the Committee was minded to approve the application, appropriate conditions would relate to highways, the materials during design and other general conditions to ensure the development complied with plans. Officers proposed that they should be given delegated authority to draw up these.

The Committee made the following points during the debate:

·       The proposed development would improve the street scene. Whilst it may not be ideal, it was better than the current building. In addition, there would be consequences if it was refused and no development was made in this area. Therefore, the Committee should support the application

·       There was strong public support for the scheme which was a significant improvement on the original since it was less overbearing and plain. Since the Carpenters building already broke the line of height of buildings, it would not set a precedent in this respect. If the scheme was approved, it would bring it under planning control

·       Whilst the officers’ adherence to the policy was understood, the application would enhance the area which required regeneration. Whilst the Construction Management Plan provided some cause for concern, it was appropriate for this to be drawn up by officers under delegated powers

·       One of the slides featured in the presentation showed the floor plan with self-contained flats

In accordance with usual practice, Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend moved, seconded by Councillor Lesley Alexander that the application be refused in accordance with officer’ recommendations.

Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (5 against, 1 for, 1 abstention).

It was then moved by Councillor Fabian Breckels, seconded by Councillor Andrew Brown and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (5 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) – that the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a Construction Management Plan and appropriate delegation to officers to prepare conditions including relating to construction management, traffic and design.