Issue - meetings

Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above

Recommendation: Refusal

The application was deferred.

Officers apologised that they were not able to put the plans in the Committee pack; the papers were being circulated at the meeting.

Officers introduced this application which sought consent for the erection of a detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above. The proposed building will be located in the North West corner of the site and is approximately 11 metres in length at its longest part on the western boundary and 6 metre in depth. The building would be approximately 2.55 metres to the eaves and 5.3 metres overall in height.

The proposed building by reason of its unacceptable height, scale, size, form and siting is considered to appear visually at odds with the established pattern, scale, form and design of backland development within the surrounding area, and would be detrimental to the character, appearance and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and Area of Special Local Character.

Further, by reason of the buildings height and siting, it would appear visually intrusive when viewed from the residents in Pembroke House, and would result in a loss of amenity space for these units, to the detriment of their amenities. The proposal thereby fails to comply with the Councils adopted policies and guidance.

The Agent spoke on behalf of the Applicant in support:

·         The statement was inaccurate and that the application was for a covered area for refuse and a small office for two members of staff offering an onsite presence for the flats.

·         Historically in 2015 a larger scheme was put forward but this had been revised addressing previous concerns.

·         The agent brought to the attention of the committee a typo that changed the word 'refuse area' to 'refuge area'.

·         The Agent concluded that the residents of Pembroke House supported the application.

Councillors questioned the Officers and it was decided that clarity was needed.

RESOLVED: That it was unanimous that the application was deferred in order to allow detailed clarification as to how the current scheme compares with the appeal scheme.