Issue - meetings

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of building of up to five storeys to provide residential dwellings (Use Class C3); car and cycle parking; landscaping, amenity space and play area; and refuse storage and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the Committee report and the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement.

(2)      That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(3)      That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

(4)      That, if by the “expiry date” of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

James Mascall, Senior Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought the development of a 3 to 5 storey building to provide a total of 42 new homes with the following mix; 15 x 1 bedrooms, 16 x 2 bedrooms and 11 x 3 bedrooms, 5 homes would also be wheelchair accessible. The proposal included 24 car parking spaces with vehicular access into the site to remain from the service road alongside Sudbury Court Drive and Watford Road. A communal amenity area to include a children’s play area would be situated towards the south western part of the site.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to three additional representations received since the Committee report had been published. The representations raised concerns in relation to the loss of the existing building, impact on neighbouring properties due to the development being overbearing and disturbance during construction works, impact on the nearby Sudbury Court Conservation Area, flooding, lack of on-site parking and impact on street trees, all of which it was reported had been addressed within the committee report. The Committee was advised that none of these were representations were from a new objector or a new address and as such the number of objections remained the same.

The Chair thanked James Mascall for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray (objector) to address the Committee (in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4