Agenda item

Report Attached

This planning application proposed the demolition of two existing workshop buildings and its replacement with 16 residential units in two blocks, accompanied by a parking area, private and communal amenity spaces, a refuse store, and cycle storage. Two of the proposed units would be equipped for disabled use.

Vehicular access would be through the existing access onto Gubbins Lane and a separate pedestrian access located at the south eastern corner of the site would also provide access from Gubbins Lane. 16 car parking spaces were proposed along with a visitor/deliveries space.

The 16 units would comprise five 1-bed flats, nine 2-bed flats, and two 3-bed houses. The main elevations of the two blocks would face in an east-west direction. The western-most block, towards the rear of the site, would be two storeys in height with two 3-bed houses at its southern end, and four flats at its northern end. Private gardens would be located to the rear, or west of this block, relating to the two houses and the two ground floor flats. The two first floor flats would include balconies.

The eastern-most block, which would front onto Gubbins Lane, would be three to four storeys in height with three flats on each of the first three floors, and one flat on the fourth floor, located at the southern end of the block. Amenity spaces would be provided in relation to the ground floor flats between the eastern elevation and the boundary with Gubbins Lane. Balconies would be provided in relation to the upper storey flats.

It was noted that three letters of representation had been received along with comments from nine statutory and non-statutory consultees.

With its agreement, Councillor Brian Eagling addressed the Committee. Councillor Eagling explained that Gubbins Lane suffered from parking congestion and experienced significant traffic movements; by adding an additional development this would merely exacerbate the situation. He added that the local transport infrastructure would come under significant pressure from the nearby residential development currently under construction; this proposal would add to that. In his view, the development would be overly dominant in the street scene to the detriment of neighbouring amenity. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

During the debate, there were contrasting views expressed with regards to the design of the proposed development and whether it would appear overly dominant in the street scene due to concerns over mass and bulk.

A motion was proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would be out of keeping in the street scene due to mass and bulk, but that motion was lost by 4 votes to 6. Councillors Durant, Hawthorn, McGeary and Ower voted for the motion to refuse planning permission.

It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•           The sum of £96,000 towards the costs of infrastructure associated with the development in accordance with the draft Planning Obligations SPD;

•           The provision of 8 units within the development as affordable housing with 6 of those units made available for social housing and 2 of those units as shared ownership. Should any owners of shared equity units staircase to 100% equity, provision shall be made for any subsidy (if relevant) to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision in accordance with Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

•           Save for the holders of blue badges that the future occupiers of the proposal will be prevented from purchasing permits for their own vehicles for any existing, revised or new permit controlled parking scheme;

•           All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council;

•           The Council’s reasonable legal fees for shall be paid prior to completion of the agreement irrespective of whether or not it is completed;

•           The Council’s planning obligation monitoring fees shall be paid prior to completion of the agreement.

Staff were authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

In the event that the Section 106 agreement was not signed and completed by the expiry of this application’s statutory determination date on 10 August 2012, that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal did not make adequate arrangements for the provision of affordable housing within the development, or for meeting the necessary infrastructure costs arising from the development.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 6 votes to 4.  Councillors Durant, Hawthorn, McGeary and Ower voted for the resolution to refuse planning permission.