Agenda item

Demolition of existing B1 office building and erection of a replacement 7-storey (plus basement) B1 office building comprising 2,337sqm (GIA) / 1,776sqm (NIA) of office floorspace.

(Planning application number: P2016/4807/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that since publication of the committee report, the council had received a further 4 letters of objections from parties who had previously objected in response to the council’s initial consultation.

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that the table following paragraph 10.92 (page 310) of the committee report erroneously identified window “Third – W1” as failing the Vertical Sky Component test, however it does in fact pass. Therefore, paragraph 10.93 should state that seven (not eight) of the 18 tested residential windows would fail VSC, and that six (not seven) of these failures are in the 0.7 to 0.79 range.

·         Members were informed that the tree referred to at paragraphs 10.25 (page 295), 10.113 (page 314) and 10.162 (page 323) is a Plane tree, not a Sycamore.

·         Objectors were concerned with issues of overbearing bulk and massing; loss of natural light, overlooking and loss of outlook and that the proposal would not contribute positively to the conservation area or setting of the Golden Lane Estate. Neighbouring residents were concerned that no assessment regarding impacts on rights to light had been undertaken nor had consultation with neighbouring residents been carried out before submission.

·         In response to residents concerns about the significant loss of daylight and sunlight, the Planning Officer acknowledged that there would be some losses, however these were not so great as to warrant refusal.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledged that two neighbouring residential properties would be overlooked however given the windows would be wither side of a public highway, and given the use of the proposed building this impact was not deemed sufficient to refuse planning permission.

·         The agent informed Members that the proposal would result in a higher quality, more accessible and more flexible employment space than what the existing buildings currently provides. The agent advised that the revisions had taken into consideration concerns raised by the Design Review Panel.

·         Members suggested that the developer and agent should have consulted with residents as it is important that their views are taken on board.

·         With regards to residents concerns about loss of privacy and overlooking from the scheme, Members agreed that tan additional condition was necessary and the decision to ascertain which of the windows needed to be obscure-glazed shall be delegated to Officers.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to Officers drafting the condition with regards to which of the windows in the scheme needed to be obscure glazed. This was seconded by Councillor Ward and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report plus the amendments set out within the report and the additional condition outlined above; and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer

Report.