Agenda item

Erection of a three storey building comprising a dental surgery and 7 residential units (6 no. 1-bed units and 1 no. 2-bed unit), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of a three-storey building comprising a dental surgery and 7 residential units (6 no. 1-bed units and 1 no. 2-bed unit), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

Officers introduced the application observing that the proposed development, by reason of its overall size, scale and bulk, would result in an incongruous form of development that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the site, the street scene and the wider area. It was noted that the proposed development would lead to the loss of a family sized residential unit and, by reason of the unit mix, failed to provide sufficient family sized units, as required by the latest information on housing need.

A written submission on behalf of the applicant was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The development had been found to be acceptable in terms of privacy and parking provision;

·       Pre-application advice had been sought prior to submission of the application and the application submitted was in line with officer’s comments;

·       Had they been advised earlier of the concerns regarding the size/scale and unit mix, the application could have been amended accordingly;

·       A deferral was requested to enable the applicant / agent to amend the plans to address the issues of concern to officers and petitioners;

·       To address concerns re. the unit mix, the application scheme could be altered to provide 3 x 1-bed units, 2 x 2-bed units and 1 x 3-bed unit;

·       An alternative system to reduce the lift overrun was proposed – this was based on a glass box and would significantly reduce the size, scale and bulk of the enclosure and would have a less intrusive design. This would also address the perception of height raised as an issue by petitioners;

·       The newly proposed 2-bed flats would have a smaller footprint than the 3 1-bed flats in the current application. This change would allow a setback of at least 3m to the second floor at the rear;

·       The proposed changes to the mix and lift over run would materially reduce the size and scale of the building so that it better related to the character and appearance of the area.

A written submission from Ward Councillor Steve Tuckwell in objection to the scheme was read out to the Committee. Key points included:

·       The development fell short of several national and local planning policies;

·       Councillor Tuckwell agreed with the content of the petition supported by 31 local residents which was based on sounds reasons for objection – the height impact on the area, overlooking and privacy concerns, parking stress and failure to provide family housing;

·       A three-storey building with a 4^th four-storey cladded structure would create an over dominant building on a prominent corner plot which would adversely impact the street scene and character and appearance of the area;

·       There was a shortfall in amenity space against policy standards.

Members noted that there was another large apartment block opposite the application site and a further 109 flats being built close by. It was felt that the proposed development was an overdevelopment of this prominent corner site.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that, during the pre-application advice process, concerns had been raised regarding the size and scale of the proposed development and the unit mix. These had not been addressed in the application.

The Committee commented that it was not possible to consider the agent’s revised proposal at this stage. 3-bed family properties were needed in the Borough and the applicant / agent would need to submit a modified application to address the reasons for refusal. The exact amenity space to be provided for the flats would also need to be clarified.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.