Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings at Afrex House, and redevelopment to provide a residential development of 3-5 storeys for 31 residential units (9 x 1bed, 18 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed), creation of public realm and alterations, landscaped amenity space, car and cycle parking and all associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement (Heads of Terms as set out within the report), any other planning obligations considered necessary by the Head of Planning and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Human Resources.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above and delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted 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.

That, if the legal agreement has not been completed by the statutory determination date for this application (including determination dates set through agreement), the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Victoria McDonagh (Area Team Leader) introduced the report and answered members’ questions.  With reference to the supplementary report, she drew members’ attention to minor amendments to submitted elevations and the updated Design and Access Statement to reflect the changes within the floor plans.  These were not considered material as to warrant public re-consultation. Ms McDonagh recommended amendment to condition 2 to reflect the changes.

Mrs Shah (objector) speaking on behalf of the owner of Kuntals (adjoining business premises) raised concerns including; the extension of the application site boundary beyond the right of way area; the impact of the development on their party wall rights with structural implications and encroachment due to its height.  Mrs Shah continued that with increased vehicular movements, the use of the shared space as a car park would affect their deliveries of 40 foot containers.

Mr Ben Johnson (applicant’s agent) stated that the scheme which would deliver high quality design homes (16% affordable housing) in compliance with the policies and regeneration aspirations of the Borough.  In addition, the applicant proposed significant public realm improvements. He clarified that the applicant would not build on the area subject to a right of way.  He specified that he was not privy to discussions with the objector on party wall issues, but confirmed that the all relevant legislation would be complied with.

In responding to issues raised, Ms McDonagh explained that Highways and Transportation concluded that with 1% overall increase in vehicular movements, 14 car parking spaces and a contribution towards CPZ via Section 106 legal agreement, the proposal would not give rise to highways issues. She clarified that as industrial units, there was no requirement for daylight and sunlight assessment to be carried out for the proposal and in terms of townscape, a 5 storey building was considered acceptable.  Members were advised that the financial viability assessment concluded that 5 affordable homes at affordable rent, enhanced with £40,000 contribution towards affordable workspace, was reasonable

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended with minor changes to condition 2 as set out in the supplementary report, and completion of satisfactory Section 106 Agreement.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6; Against 0; Abstention 0).