Venue: VIRTUAL MEEING
Contact: Taiwo Adeoye - 01708 433079 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Protocol attached to be noted by the Committee
The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point in the meeting.
Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.
There were no disclosures of interest.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 November 2020 and to authorise the Chairman to sign at a later date.
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2020 were agreed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at a later date.
The Committee received a developer presentation from the Robert Whitton (Chairman -Impact Capital Group), Nick Shattock (CEO Impact Developments, Karen Jones (Planning Consultant RPS), Scott Lawrie (Architect Ethos), Joanna Ede (Townscape Turley), Pierre Chin-Dickey (Landscape McFarlane), Alec Philpott (Transport – Mayer Brown) and Kay Blair.
The main issues raised by Members for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application were:
· A wish to understand more about the tenure type and split in relation to key workers and the Build to Rent product.
· The importance of affordable housing nomination rights for borough residents.
· Further details of unit mix were sought and a concern expressed about the low level of 3 bed units.
· More details of child yield were sought.
· A keenness to ensure the safe movement of pedestrians across Rom Valley Way, especially as future social infrastructure would be on the opposite side of Rom Valley Way.
· If there would be adequate space between the blocks to provide quality children’s play area.
· The proposed integration with Queens Hospital (in terms of floorspace and key worker homes) was welcomed.
· The current shortage of sufficient parking spaces for people visiting and working at Queens Hospital and how traffic access to the site during and post construction would be managed.
· Further details were sought on the timing of the phasing and the practicalities of construction given the proximity to the hospital.
· Further details of the refuse storage arrangements were sought.
· A wish to understand how the estate would be managed following completion.
· The ‘necklace’ approach to Oldchurch Park access was welcomed. The developer was encouraged to ensure access to it was promoted.
· The need for the Oldchurch Park footpath to be lit after dusk.
· A wish to see a visual comparison between the approved scheme and the proposed scheme.
· A wish to visuals from the opposite side of Rom Valley Way.
· A keenness to understand the impact upon neighbouring occupiers in more detail.
· Whether a daylight and sunlight analysis have been undertaken for the public realm and a reassurance that these spaces would have good light levels.
· What was the justification for the proximity of the blocks to the site boundaries.
· What was the justification for the tallest blocks.
· Whether there would be sufficient dual aspect units.
· The applicant must ensure that the Air Ambulance flight path would not be impeded
· If was there a need for a warning beacon on top of the tallest buildings given the Air Ambulance flight path.
FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS POST SPC PRESENTATION
A member raised the following issues:
· The robustness of the explanation that viability was the reason the original scheme was not built out.
· The logic behind the hybrid nature of the application.
· The proximity of the blocks to the site boundaries.
· What were the justification for the tallest blocks.
· The number of family units were significantly short when compared to policy.
· The robustness of the explanation that dual aspects concerns have been addressed.
· Further evidence were needed to reassure that pedestrians, especially school ... view the full minutes text for item 84.