Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and replacement with an up to 8-storey building comprising residential units and associated car parking, landscaping and amenity space.

Detailed description: Provision of 32 units (14 x 1 bedroom, 14 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the item be refused as per officers’ recommendations.

Demolition of existing building and replacement with an up to 8-storey building comprising residential units and associated car parking, landscaping and amenity space.

Detailed description: Provision of 32 units (14 x 1 bedroom, 14 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom).

Officers introduced the application noting that the proposals in front of Members were a revision of a previous application on this site that had been refused by the Committee in 2020. Officers drew Members attention to the clarifications made in the addendum and it was noted that the application was recommended for refusal.

Petitioners who had objected to the application were present and addressed the Committee. During the petitioner’s speaking time, a silent video was played featuring computer generated imagery that highlighted the petitioners’ concerns. These concerns included:

·       The current proposals exceeded applicable density guidelines and were deemed an overdevelopment of the site and overbearing to neighbouring properties;

·       There would be a significant loss of daylight and sunlight for many of the residents of the Padcroft Estate and Fitzroy Court;

·       Concerns were raised as to the levels of overlooking between habitable rooms and substantial loss of privacy;

·       Within Fitzroy Court, it was highlighted that residents would suffer a severe loss of outlook from bedroom windows if the eight-storey development were to go ahead;

·       It was noted that the residents’ concerns had been raised both formally and informally but the applicant and agent had failed to address these.

The agent had submitted written representations which were read out by the Democratic Services Officer. Key points of the statement included:

·       It was noted that the proposals in front of Members responded positively to the reasons for refusal cited when the previous application came to Committee in October 2020;

·       A number of benefits offered by the scheme were laid out including the development of an under-utilised brownfield site, new housing in an accessible location, urban greening, and a sustainably designed building;

·       It was highlighted that the proposals would complete the comprehensive development of site allocation SA38;

·       Regarding impacts on neighbouring occupiers, it was stated that Council officers had offered little in the way of guidance for the applicant and agent to overcome such issues as overbearing, sense of enclosure and loss of outlook;

·       The applicant had tried to proactively engage with officers to ensure that any comments received could be addressed through additional information or incorporated through design changes, however, they claimed that there had been lack of engagement from officers.

The Committee were in general agreement with the officer’s recommendations. With regard to parking arrangements and specifically the mechanical parking stackers, it was noted that the Council asks for a maintenance plan to ensure that the stackers would be properly maintained and in the event that they did break down, they would quickly be repaired.  By way of clarification, it was confirmed to Members that the waste collection point for all occupants of the proposed building would be at the end of the site on Tavistock Road; the Committee deemed this to be an inconvenience for any potential occupiers, particularly those living in the top floor dwellings, and were minded to include reference to this layout issue in the reasons for refusal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the item be refused as per the officer’s recommendations; and

2)    That the Head of Planning be delegated authority to include reference to layout inconveniences for potential occupiers in the reasons for refusal.