Minutes:
The proposal before Members was for the demolition of the existing four retail units, with vacant office accommodation above, and the erection of an eight storey building with four (A1) retail units at ground floor level, and 28 flats above (24 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 1 bedroom units), occupying seven storeys. The eighth storey element comprised of a services block at the top of the building.
The application was brought before Members on 26 June, 2014; the decision was deferred to allow an opportunity for the height of the proposal to be reduced through negotiations between the developer and officers.
The agent has subsequently submitted sketches to officers for comment. The sketches showed either a 6/7 storey development or a 6 storey development similar to the submitted proposal, where most of the site would be occupied by the full height of the development. The response of officers to these changes was that given the modest height of the buildings either side of the application site, that the proposal would appear out of place and overly bulky.
The outcome of negotiation process was that the developer had opted to continue with the 8 storey proposal. The applicant had submitted additional plans and images to illustrate the appearance of the proposal from different angles, with a minor change being made to the south eastern corner at 7th floor level, turning two existing balconies into a terrace.
Officers had also sought clarification over the proposed legal agreement and whether the applicant had sufficient interest in the neighbouring land to be able to sign an agreement to undertake works and cease the use of the nightclub. It appeared that the applicant was not the freehold owner of the adjoining land, and therefore any legal agreement to cease the nightclub use (discontinuance of the existing permitted use) and to undertake works would require the freehold owner to sign up to an agreement. The agreement of the freehold owner to enter into a S106 agreement had not been confirmed. In any event the discontinuance of use could only be given legal effect by the Secretary of State therefore irrespective of whether or nor the applicant had the freehold interest a legal agreement could not secure discontinuance of use. Therefore the offer to discontinue use of the nightclub could not be given any weight in planning terms.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.
The objector commented that the proposal was entirely against Council policy and that English Heritage had stated that the Local Planning Authority should make the determination but the Council’s Conservation Officer had objected to the scheme.
In response the applicant’s agent commented that the application would remove unsightly buildings and improve the vitality of the area. The agent also confirmed that the Designing Out Crime Officer had raised no objections to the scheme and that the applicant had also offered to enter into an obligation that would prevent the continued use of the neighbouring property (known as Buddha Lounge), being used as a night club.
With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.
Councillor Thompson commented that the report was well written and that he agreed with officer’s recommendations that planning permission should be refused.
During the debate several Members concurred with officers views that the proposal would impact on the nearby conservation area.
Members also received clarification regarding the proposed rear entrance to the building and the height of the “Rubicon” building opposite.
Members agreed that it was unfortunate that the applicant had not taken on board the Committee’s previous comments regarding the possible reduction of the number of storeys that were proposed for the building.
The report recommended that planning permission be refused, however it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow the applicant a further opportunity to consider reducing the development to no higher than six storeys.