Agenda item

Councillor Eddy left the meeting.

9. 17/04132/F – Olympia House, 36 – 38, Beaconsfield Road, St. George.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Asher Craig;

2. This application was for full planning permission for the redevelopment of Olympia House to provide 26 residential flats whilst retaining the historic and architecturally important elements of the site;

3. The rearshed-like structures would be demolished to facilitate a 12 space car park and a new build of 4 flats;

4. The development also included refuse and bicycle storage and a landscaped area adjacent to Beaconsfield Road;

5. The number of units proposed triggered the Affordable Housing policy but as the building was vacant it benefited from Vacant Building Credit and was not therefore obliged to provide affordable housing. This fact should not be held against it when considering the application;

6. The objections received related to residential amenity including noise, disturbance and privacy, the amount of the proposed development and its impact on on-street parking, the lack of affordable housing and the lack of 3 bedroom units;

7. A condition requiring windows to be glazed on the elevation over-looking residences and even without that condition, officers believed the overlooking was acceptable;

8. A Construction Management Plan condition would ensure that buildings were demolished as the area was developed so that there would not be a large number of vehicles and cranes on site at one time;

9. The applicant had submitted information that the 12 parking spaces could accommodate the 26 flats and a survey of nearby streets showed that there was capacity for overspill parking. A TRO would ensure that there would be no parking near or at the junction of the site so as not to cause disruption;

10. The renewable energy target was not quite met given the nature of the proposal. There was a condition requiring solar panels;

11. In summary, the conversion was sensitive, the 26 flats would help the housing supply and the development benefited from Vacant Building Credit. Officers recommended grant subject to conditions and a legal agreement and a contribution to the TRO’s.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. Councillor Sergeant questioned the level of parking provision given the development was not in the City Centre and was informed that the development was within walking distance of Church Road which was considered a distinct centre and was therefore sustainable. It was accepted that parking was limited but there was sufficient parking near the site for overspill;

2. The site was advertised for use for 12 months since the date of the report;

3. Officers would have preferred more 3 bedroom units but the applicant had increased the number so was on balance better;

4. Councillor Stevens stated that electric heating was wasteful and a rough deal for owners and asked whether a condition requiring ground source heat pumps had been considered. He was referred to Condition 16 which required the applicant to provide details of the proposed heating controls to minimise energy use;

5. A number of conditions imposed provided sufficient controls to ensure the development was carried out as proposed. If not developed as planned enforcement measures could be used;

6. Councillor Davies did not accept that the developer could not meet the 20% reduction Carbon Dioxide emissions from residual energy use. He also shared concerns about parking and suggested that the application be deferred and a less intensive proposal be submitted;

7. Councillor Clarke agreed with the previous comments regarding 20% reduction in Carbon Dioxide.

7. Councillor Mead believed the site was not appropriate for an intensive housing development and that it lent itself more to an artist’s studio and that criteria A & B argument regarding its use for employment had not been properly made. He asked that the application be refused; The Head of  Development Management responded that the policy test had been met. There had been a limited number of enquiries when marketed. It was not possible to hold out for a wider aspiration and refusing the application on that basis would be difficult to defend;

8. Councillor Sergeant did not support the application as she believed it would lead to increased traffic congestion as there were insufficient spaces in the car park. She acknowledged the lack of affordable housing was not a reason to refuse but was nevertheless disappointed that there was none;

9. Councillor Brook stated that the site was not overdeveloped and there was a need to densify in order to meet housing targets. He noted there was insufficient parking but there was a need to reduce car use and there were good public transport links. The loss of privacy had been well conditioned. There were no grounds to refuse the application;

10. Councillor Stevens asked if Condition 16 could be enhanced to ensure the 20% reduction in CO2;

11. Councillor Wright stated that there were some issues with the application but not enough to merit refusal. He added the 20% reduction should be imposed as a minimum. He would vote for the approval of the application;

12. Councillor Brook moved the recommendations as set out in the report with the addition of an amendment to Condition 16 to ensure the 20% reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions from residual energy use was met and this was seconded by Councillor Stevens. On being to the vote, it was:

Resolved (6 for, 3 against) – That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions as set out in the report save for an amendment to condition 16 so that the condition also requires the development to provide sufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energy use in the building(s) by at least 20% as required by Core Strategy policy BCS14.