Decision details

(Case No. 11/00251/RG3) (Page 19 of the Agenda)

The officers gave a presentation referring members to the additional information contained in the addendum and the fact that it was recommended that there be a Section 106 agreement The officers gave a presentation referring members to the additional information contained in the addendum and the fact that it was recommended that there be a Section 106 agreement to secure the provision of a car club parking bay and membership for 2 years for the future occupiers. The Section 106 was also required to secure affordable housing and additional affordable housing should the site be subdivided or additional housing provided on site.

Officers also advised that an additional condition was required to remove permitted development rights.

It was also reported that the Parks and Open Spaces Officer had proposed that tree 14 be removed and tree 13 be retained whereas the Arboricultural Officer had supported the proposal that tree 13 be removed and tree 14 retained. The presence of tree 13 would affect the footings of the development.

The meeting was addressed by three residents of Brief Street who made the following points:

• The planning website did not contain details of the 11 objections which had led to problems in identifying objectors.
• Whilst they did not object to the site being developed they considered that the proposals were not appropriate in a conservation area and did not reflect the design of the neighbouring properties.
• The proposed design did not retain the lines of the neighbouring properties.
• There would be an unacceptable loss of trees.
• There was very little provision for cars and there would be an increase in parking pressure in the neighbourhood.
• They asked that the design be resubmitted to address their concerns.

In answer to questions from the Members the following points were made by officers and the applicant:

• Fruiting trees had been proposed as that had been advised by a Council Officer.
• No parking was proposed on the site as the development was on a corner where there were traffic signals. As there was no off street parking the proposal to provide a car club parking bay and car club membership for future occupiers had been proposed as part of the Section 106 agreement.
• The timber to be used on the building would be sustainable such as chestnut or larch and would not need to be treated. It would go grey after a year and could last for 60 years.
• As regards the buildings these did not have steps because of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. There was an alignment with the top of the Bay Window of the neighbouring property.
• It would not be appropriate to refuse the application on the grounds of there being a loss of garden as this referred to the loss of back gardens and this was an infill site, as a result of bomb damage.
• The site was presently underutilized as the present property did not meet the standards for Decent Homes.
• There were timber shutters on the first floor and the porches would also be made of timber.
• The design was not intended to mimic the surrounding properties or be a pastiche. No. 52 adjoining the site, posed particular design challenges as this was much bigger than the other properties.
• The properties were designed so that heating would not be needed.

Members expressed their concerns over the design and wished it to be more sympathetic to the surrounding properties, particularly as it was in a conservation area. There were concerns about the amount of timber in the design. It was unclear whether the views of the Conservation Officer had been taken into account in the officers’ assessment.

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That the application be deferred pending design improvements being secured in relation to fenestration pattern; materials; relationship to properties on adjoining sites; height and bulk.