Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the disused parking court/ amenity deck to the rear of an existing 4 storey block of Council flats to create 29 additional new homes.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the redevelopment of the disused parking court/ amenity deck to the rear of an existing 4 storey block of Council flats to create 29 additional new homes.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was enquired whether the proposal had sufficient three bed units and whether the balconies would be fully enclosed to protect from noise disturbance and to ensure appropriate temperature control. It was explained that, in balancing the units with the location, it was considered that the location may not be suitable for three bed units but that the mix of units could still be amended. In relation to the balconies, it was noted that these would be 6-7m² amenity spaces in the corners of the buildings. It was noted that these were not internalised and were winter gardens. It was explained that there were screens for acoustic privacy but it was accepted that, due to possible weather and noise, it may not be practical to use the balconies at all times.

·         In relation to parking, it was confirmed that no parking would be provided by the proposal. It was explained that there was an intention to have an active car club and that the applicant team was in contact with two car club providers.

·         It was clarified that the applicant proposed to remove the ramp on the site and that the road would connect to a new, wider lobby which would result in improved access within the building so that there would be a single entry point and so that all residents could access their apartments from the lift or the stairs.

·         The Committee expressed some concerns that the development would be car free but that the surrounding area did not have Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). The applicant team commented that the scheme was not able to provide parking; they asked whether the Council might be able to assist with this and suggested that it might be useful to consider this at the consultation stage.

·         It was noted that there were some concerns about having a single point of entry due to some previous anti-social behaviour issues and it was enquired which areas would be public and which would be residential. The applicant team explained that the spaces at the front and side of the building were intended to be private spaces for residents and would not be open to the public. It was added that the applicant team was looking forward to engaging with residents to determine how to make the spaces as practical as possible. It was also noted that the block had undergone decent homes improvements approximately five years’ ago but that some further, although less intrusive, improvement works were planned in 2022-23.

·         It was commented that the applicant was proposing to remove the concrete structure on the site to open up the building to additional natural light. It was noted that new glazing would be set slightly away to provide some three dimensional space, with a view of the courtyard and some visual points of interest. It was also confirmed that all apartments would have 6m² of space in the form of a winter garden.

·         Some members noted that there were a number of maisonettes in the surrounding area and that it would be beneficial to provide more family homes if possible.

The Chair acknowledged that this was a challenging site and thanked the applicant team for attending.

At 8.50pm, the Committee agreed a short adjournment; the meeting resumed at 8.55pm.