Agenda item

Demolition of existing building providing a 6 bedroom HMO (house in multiple occupation) and erection of a new building to provide 7 flats 3x1, 3x2 and 1x3 bed with amenity space, communal amenity space and covered cycle storage and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing 6 bedroom house in multiple occupation at 2 Wakefield Road and erection of a new building to provide 7 flats with amenity space, communal amenity space and covered cycle and refuse storage. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.  

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of residents addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following points:

·         Notification of the Planning Committee meeting had been received late by local residents that had submitted written representation.

·         The current building on site was an eyesore, which the owner had allowed to deteriorate over time including association with drug dealing and use as a brothel and which had only been closed down through the action of local people in conjunction with the Police.

·         The design was out of keeping with the rest of the housing stock in the area and although it was recognised the current building required redevelopment, the design needed to be more sympathetic to the surrounding area. 

·         The applicant had made no attempts to engage with local residents in the development of the design for the scheme.

·         The new building would be too large in scale and height, double the depth of the current Victorian terraced housing in the vicinity and particularly dominating as a result of the considerable rear elevation.

·         Overshadowing and overlooking would be caused to neighbouring properties from both the windows and balconies proposed to the rear elevation.

·         The scheme represented overdevelopment of the site, with a significant increase in floorspace proposed from that approved under the previous application for 5 flats and which had been now been increased to 7 flats. The scheme would set a precedent in the area for the overdevelopment of sites.

·         Concerns were expressed that the green roofs proposed would not be adequately maintained and were likely to suffer from new occupants using them in an unauthorised way as additional amenity space.

·         Not all of the proposed flats met space and amenity minimum standards.

Cllrs Vanier and Diakides addressed the Committee in their capacity as ward Councillors and raised the following points:

·         Local residents felt that they had not been given enough time to prepare their case against the application due to late notification.

·         Redevelopment of the site was welcomed but the current application constituted overdevelopment and was out of scale and the design out of keeping with surrounding properties which could set a precedent in the area.

·         The building would potentially result in overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

·         Concerns were raised that the green roofs proposed would not be maintained.

·         The focus on the applicant appeared to be solely on extracting profit from the site to the detriment of local people.

·         The Committee were urged to reject the application on the grounds of overdevelopment.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The design was in keeping with the area as it sought to reference neighbouring properties.

·         Overshadowing and overlooking studies had been undertaken.

·         The site was large and therefore supported a larger development than that originally granted permission.

·         Future occupants would be unlikely to use the green roofs unauthorised as sufficient amenity space would be provided within the scheme.

·         There was only a modest shortfall to floorspace minimum standards of one of the flats and which officers considered acceptable.

·         The redevelopment would help address the antisocial behaviour issues associated with the current building and also provide additional, much needed new housing supply.

·         The increase sought in the number of flats compared to the previously granted application was on the grounds of viability and which was the reason for the lapse of the original permission due to inability to gain the required finance.

·         Comments made by local people and officers had been incorporated in the development of the design. 

·         The maintenance of the current building was difficult for the owner in recognition of the plans to develop the site.

The Committee sought clarification from officers on the following points:

·         Officers identified that although one of the flats had a 1sqm shortfall to minimum floorspace standards, this was considered minor and deemed acceptable. Additionally, two of the flats did not meet minimum amenity space standards to mitigate the risks of overlooking but this was deemed acceptable in consideration of the communal space provided to the rear garden.

·         Confirmation was provided that the green roofs did not constitute part of the amenity space and were intended to be accessible only for maintenance. Unauthorised use by occupants could potentially be dealt with under enforcement powers as a breach of condition.

·         In relation to enforcement of the car free designation of the scheme, officers advised that occupiers would be ineligible for parking permits. Recent changes had been made to the s106 process to strengthen the designation by requiring the car free designation to be incorporated within the lease document and so made clear to buyers at the point of sale.  

·         The affordable housing contribution proposed was in line with Council policy.

Cllr Rice proposed a motion, seconded by Cllr Bevan, to refuse the application on the grounds that the application constituted overdevelopment and that not all the flats met minimum floorspace and amenity standards. At a vote, the motion was carried and so it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2014/1173 be refused on the grounds that the application constituted overdevelopment of the site in addition to not all of the flats being compliant with the minimum floorspace and amenity space standards.