Agenda item

In response to members’ request made at the site visit and in reference to the tabled supplementary report, the Planning Manager Andy Bates clarified the dimensions of the proposed building both in terms of height (15metres) and the separation distance between habitable room windows and the rear elevation of properties in Rucklidge Avenue.  He added that there was nothing in the application to suggest that flooding would be a particular issue.  He however reiterated the recommendation for refusal.

Mr Ian Britton Chair of Rucklidge Avenue Residents’ Association started by saying that whilst he welcomed the principle of development on the site, he considered that the design would create an adverse and colossal impact on local residents.  He continued that the proposal, with an excessive height of 15m, would be out of character with the nearby sheltered accommodation, leading to loss of sunlight and daylight, over-looking and loss of privacy.  Mr Britton added that the level of residential amenities for future residents of the proposed development would be significantly below acceptable standards.

Mrs Ellam also objected to the application on grounds of loss of daylight and sunlight, inappropriate design which did not respect the needs of the local residents.  She added that with its excessive height which was close to other residential properties, the proposal would result in overlooking and loss of privacy.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Joseph, a ward member stated that she had been approached by local residents in connection with this application.  Councillor Joseph stated that by submitting an application higher than the scheme which was refused on appeal, the applicant was simply demonstrating arrogance.  She objected on grounds of the proposal’s over-dominant feature over Rucklidge Avenue resulting from its excessive height and width.  Councillor Joseph added that this would lead to overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light and a detrimental impact on quality of life of the residents.

Mr R Brotherick the applicant’s agent conceded that there were some anomalies within the application particularly in terms of its height and for those reasons he had advised his client to accept the refusal and consider re-submitting a revised scheme.  He added that the application which sought to make efficient use of a brownfield site would provide 100% affordable housing and assist with the acute housing shortage within the Borough. In response to Councillor Anwar’s suggestion for proper consultation prior to re-submission, Mr Brotherick stated that he had already advised his client along those lines.

During discussion Councillor Powney commented that the proposal would offer poor quality housing and design as it was flush with the facade of the High Street.  He noted that there was no condition for a “car free development” in an area which was heavily parked.  The Chair added that despite the housing shortage, there was every need for the scheme to comply with standards and policies in all respects.