Issue - meetings

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)        The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

(2)        The conditions and informatives as detailed within the report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed second and third floor extensions to 4 x existing blocks to create new self-contained residential dwellings. Associated enlargement of refuse storage, cycle parking spaces to front / rear and improvements to soft landscaping to communal garden.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report; and

(2)  The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report.

Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for second and third floor extensions to 4 x existing blocks to create new self-contained residential dwellings, and associated enlargement of refuse storage, cycle parking spaces to front / rear and improvements to soft landscaping to communal garden.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Maria S (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• In highlighting her objections it was felt the proposed development would result in a complete transformation, with much taller buildings, including two out of four blocks doubling in size, featuring flat roofs. Changes in the layout and size of the new flats, as well as the addition of balconies were noted. The period style of the 1930s, which characterised the current buildings, was felt to be entirely lost.

• Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the significant disruption that leaseholders and occupiers would endure during the demolition and construction phases. It was felt that this disruption would be particularly challenging for residents who spent the majority of their time at home, due to noise, dust, dirt, restricted movement, and invasion of privacy.  It was also pointed out, if approved, the applicant had three years to commence the works, leaving residents in a state of limbo, unable to plan their lives, sell, or rent their properties, resulting in prolonged suffering and uncertainty.

• Concerns were expressed that, even if residents survived the construction phase without severe mental health impacts, many would find themselves in a completely new environment within a much larger estate, which would no longer feel like home with the enlargement of the new floor area equivalent to 24 existing flats, not 16, representing a 60% increase. It was felt that this would likely result in a proportional increase in the number of residents, all using the existing communal areas and amenities, significantly worsening the quality of life for current residents.

• In concluding her representations the objector strongly believed it was the Council's moral duty to reject the proposal and protect the property owners and occupiers who it was felt would be adversely affected by the freeholder's financial interests and the Council's pursuit of additional properties, without sufficient consideration for the potential harm and suffering caused to the existing residents.

The Chair thanked the objector for addressing the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7