Agenda item

Application for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and the erection of 30 no. residential units (Use Class C3) (comprising 20 no. 1 bed replacement almshouse units, 2 no. 2 bed staff units and 8 no. 1 bed sheltered units), with office/meeting room, residents' cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and erection of 30 residential units, with office/meeting room, residents' cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping. Officers made a recommendation for refusal. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

-       Wood bridge House was a locally listed building. The property now acted as offices for the local community serving local businesses and was used by the community to hold meetings when there were issues in the area.

-       The architecture of the new design was not iconic or sympathetic to the design of the local area which was surrounded by Victorian properties.

-       The height of the proposed of the development would also be over oppressive and dominating.

-       The applicant failed to meet the conditions set in the previous meeting such as providing disabled accommodation and affordable units. 

-       Local residents were upset by the proposed development and the impact on the availability of parking. The surveys from the proposed development showed that light levels would decrease impacting local neighbouring properties.

-       Security was also a concern as the current plans did not have any security gates. Noise levels would increase affecting people who worked from home.  

-       To summarise, residents were not happy with the demolition, the design, the height, the design and the parking.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

-       A technical proposal was received from officers. The first attempt was found to be unworkable. The latest attempt seeking to impose an (M4 (3)) standard to the bathroom areas within (M4 (2)) units had been presented far too late to be assessed properly.

-       The 100 percent (M4 (3)) expands the foot print beyond the site boundary.

-       The 100 percent affordable housing requirement compromises the funding.

-       The applicant had commissioned considerable time and resources and had also arranged a viability assessment. The viability report and officers have accepted that the scheme cannot bear the imposition of further affordable housing at the loss of the open market bench. Subsidised houses are already being offered.

-       Making kitchens (M4(2)) and the remaining areas of the unit (M4(3)) and bathrooms (M4(3)) and the remaining areas of the unit (M4(2)) would reduce the unit size and would compromise the overall use and  appeal of the units.  

-       (M4(3)) is the highest level of accessibility for people who are permanently in wheel chairs, and it so considered that this will never be the case for occupants in this proposed development. (M4 (2)) is a highly accessible standards. Outside London (M4 (1)) is acceptable.

Members considered that the loss of heritage must deliver significant public benefit. This was a specific accommodation for a specific cohort of people, namely people in their later life where needs would be different. As a result, Members were of the view that standards wheelchair accessibility needed to be higher. Bathrooms had to be sufficient to meet the needs of people at later life. Members accepted that there could be some flexibility in the kitchen area but not in the bathroom area.

Members were not in favour of deferring the item to allow the applicant to have additional time.

The proposed development as suggested by the Access officer will enhance the bathroom design.

To summarise, Members noted that the applicant had done a viability assessment which showed that it was not viable to have affordable housing. The officer's view of the scheme is that there are 20 replacement arms houses. Two staff flats and the remaining eight are to be sheltered units for elderly people at market rent.  Officers accepted that to provide fully disabled units would increase the footprint and cost of the scheme. The Council access officer has suggested to have (M4(2)) units with (M4(3)) bathrooms making it more flexible for people with limited mobility to use the bathrooms.

Members considered two options namely not to fully accept the application at this time or approve the application subject to further conditions.  

Members moved the officers' recommendation for refusal and seconded, and upon being put to a vote, there were four votes in favour and three against.

RESOLVED - That the application be refused as per the officer's recommendation.