Agenda item

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 storey block comprising

1 x three bed, 2 x four bed houses, 4 x two bed and 2 x one bed flats. Development includes associated landscaping and parking.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee was informed that this application had been deferred from previous Planning Committees for a site visit to be undertaken.   The applicant had now appealed on the grounds of non determination by the Council.  The Committee was asked to say what decision they would have made if the Committee had a further opportunity to consider the application. 

The application site comprised the former garage court on the south side of Harold Road and Newton Road.  The garages were largely unused and the site was located within a residential area.  The use of the site for residential purposes would contribute to the Council’s strategic housing targets.  The scheme provided a good mix of dwelling types and sizes.  The proposed buildings were two and three storey and so were of bulk and mass appropriate to the area and would not significantly adversely affect sunlight or daylight to the rear gardens and windows of existing houses in Herbert Road.

Included within the scheme, 5 car parking spaces were provided and was considered to be acceptable due to the location of the scheme in an area of medium to high public transport accessibility.

Cllr Vanier addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the grounds of over development.  It was felt that the cumulative effect of a number of small developments raised concern over the lack of amenity, environmental improvement, pressure on local schools, local health service provision, traffic and parking.  The Committee was asked not to look at these applications in isolation but to look at whole area to see the overall effects.  The UDP urged caution in respect of new housing development in or near existing social housing provision.  

Cllr Lister addressed the Committee and raised concern over the cumulative effect of small scale developments on an area.  What was currently in the vicinity of the proposed site were high density 1960s developments.  We would ask for our comments to be noted and have no alternative to objective to the proposed development.

The Applicant’s representative responded and stated that this application was a low density scheme than the previous one considered.  The developer was making a contribution to the amenity of the area.  Traffic and parking in the area was not too much of an issue however, they had provided adequate parking for this development.  The design reflected houses and gardens.

The Committee questioned the applicant on the number of units and the proposed density.  The applicant responded that the application had been in process for three years as they had wanted to resolve the design issues.  The  number of units had been reduced to nine.  The Committee raised further concern that the design lacked lustre, the street scape was poor, and whether security and lighting been considered along with fire access.  The Officer advised the Committee that security could be dealt with by adding conditions.  Fire access was not considered to be necessary as the development had total street frontage.  The Committee requested further conditions be added:

• Communal satellite dish to be installed.
• Sustainability to be built into the design – solar pre-warming of the flats, permeable hard areas and external lights solar assisted.
• Landscaping around the development
• Tree planting on the street frontage
• Appropriate secure cycle racks to be provided.

The Chair moved a motion and asked the Committee to vote on this application as if it were being considered.  On a vote there were 5 in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.  The vote was carried.