Agenda item

Erection of a two storey building comprising 12, one-bedroom supported housing units, along with ancillary office space and associated landscaping for new building, alterations to car parking and access arrangements (both vehicular and pedestrian) (involving demolition of dwellings known as 19, 20, 21 and 22 Chippendale Way).

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a two storey building comprising 12, one-bedroom supported housing units, along with ancillary office space and associated landscaping for new building, alterations to car parking and access arrangements (both vehicular and pedestrian) (involving demolition of dwellings known as 19, 20, 21 and 22 Chippendale Way).

Officers presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the amendments in the Addendum sheet.

The Chairman asked whether part of the proposed development was dedicated for nursery use. Officers advised that a survey was carried out to work out the level of occupancy and found 11 spaces; and in terms of staff usage, with the present staff proportion, there would always be spaces after the development for staff.

A Member commented that the drawings showed that the kitchen windows opened into a corridor with limited natural lighting and suggested that the Code 3 level (for Sustainable Homes) should be replaced with Code 4 to counter act this. Officers advised that Code 3 was generally used unless there was a material reason, and in this instance, it could be modified by the Committee.

With regard to the provision of car parking spaces for supported housing, a Member commented that if parking spaces were allocated, the current parking spaces for Nos. 22 – 28 Chippendale Waye would no longer be available.  Officers responded that the applicant had advised that as it was their land, they were not required to provide parking spaces for those occupiers. Occupiers of Nos. 22 – 28 Chippendale Waye could park along the access road; the current view was that there were 23 spaces available at the rear access road.

It was explained that of the 23 spaces, 11 would be allocated for nursery use and the remainder would be uncontrolled parking during the day for the residents.  The applicant had been asked to mark the spaces for nursery use (which would be no more than 2 staff) during nursery hours.

In answer to a query about the loss of amenity space in the fenced off area in the car park, officers advised that the area was a derelict playground, which had not been covered in the report. The Committee was informed that as the area had been abandoned for so long, it would not be feasible to use as a play area without having to re-create it.

A Member pointed out that in purchasing the properties in Chippendale Waye, residents also purchased the right of access and that it was worth noting there was controlled parking the whole area.

The Committee raised concerns about the need for the disable parking bay to be near as possible to the entrance and requested officers to confirm whether the Wall along Chippendale Alley was a listed building.

The Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Services indicated that there were concerns about the proposed level of parking and in view of the issues raised, advised that it would be appropriate for him to withdraw the application.

The application was therefore withdrawn by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Services for the clarification and amendments as set out below; and reported back to a Committee meeting:

• Ascertain whether nearby residents have legal ownership over the proportions of the site for car parking
• Establish how long the playground had been abandoned and the Council’s policy to its removal
• Investigate the adequacy of proposed amenity space
• Confirm whether the wall along Chippendale Waye was a listed
• Look into the disabled parking spaces being positioned close to Chippendale Alley
• Amend Condition 24 to require Code 4