Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer, subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

DECISION:  Deferred to allow officers to report to a future meeting of the committee addressing reasons to support the Committee being minded to refuse the application due to an unacceptable increase in residential density and massing of buildings and inadequate vehicular access/egress in and out of the site.

PROPOSAL: Erection of a 6-storey building comprising 5 x 2 bedroom self-contained flats with roof garden attached to the Jubilee Heights building to also include the removal of existing vehicular access and cross over off Shoot Up Hill and installation of new pedestrian gates, railing and brick piers with access from Exeter Road.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer, subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the proposal and referenced the supplementary report tabled at the meeting.  He pointed out that an additional condition was being recommended to widen the access road. 

Lucy Gardner (objector) stated that the proposal amounted to a new building rather than provide any complementary extension to Jubilee Heights.  She explained how her designated parking place had been removed and suggested that the report did not adequately explain the implications of access for car parking for 96 flats.  The use of the padlocked gate was clarified.

O Sowunmi (objector) stated that the capacity for vehicular access to Jubilee Heights was being halved for the sake of an additional 5 flats.  Access to the flats by fire engines was questioned.  It was pointed out that most of the buildings in Shoot Up Hill had direct access on to the road.  Rearranged waste disposal facilities meant there was less space for car parking and a lack of space for further redevelopment.

Duncan Chadwick (agent) stated that his client had bought the site with the benefit of 5 car parking spaces.  The proposal was for much needed housing accommodation and should be seen in the context of the planning history of the site which had seen incremental development over the years.  He claimed that the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and so should be approved.

Members of the committee were advised that the issue of the provision of designated parking spaces to existing leaseholders and arrangements for refuse collection were not planning considerations as they did not relate to the planning application that was being determined and residents needed to take these matters up with the freeholder.  Members asked questions concerning vehicular access to the site, the provision of amenity space and the potential for overdevelopment of the site if planning permission was granted.  Concern was expressed around the incremental increase in residential density on the site and the access to the site, especially for emergency vehicles.

DECISION:  Deferred to allow officers to report to a future meeting of the committee addressing reasons to support the Committee being minded to refuse the application due to an unacceptable increase in residential density and massing of buildings and inadequate vehicular access/egress in and out of the site.

In accordance with paragraph 40 of the Planning Code of Practice voting on the above decision was recorded as follows:

FOR: Councillors Marquis, Colacicco, Choudhary, Choudry, Mahmood, Maurice and M Patel

AGAINST: none

ABSTAIN: Councillor Agha