Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 7 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and new 3 storey (plus basement levels) 1,419sqm self-storage building (Use Class B8), with landscaping, access and associated works.

(Planning application number: P2016/1344/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised members that paragraph 10.119 on page 279 of the Committee Report should state the distances as 11.7-13.6m, consistent with the rest of the report.

·         The Planning Officer advised members that paragraph 10.159 on page 284 of the Committee Report should state that the wheelchair parking spaces may also be used by resident blue badge holders, and should omit the reference to business use.  The Planning Officer clarified that condition 20 is recommended to ensure that accessible parking spaces are available to those who need them.

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that an additional letter objecting against the scheme had been received.  The letter raised issues which had been addressed in the published papers, including a request to limit construction times.

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that an additional letter had been received from a legal firm representing residents, which requested clarification to Members that each house at 6-22 Melody Lane (even nos) has 4 bedrooms, 2 of which overlook the site and would be affected.

·         A resident raised objections regarding the height of the proposed building and stated that the houses at Aberdeen Park are over ground and first storey with additional rooms in the roofspace; that the top floors of the proposed houses should be set into the roofspace; and that the proposed scheme was not visually subordinate to the existing Mews.

·         A resident stated that the scheme was inappropriate to the existing character of the area; that the proposed building would obscure views; and that it would be and harmful to the setting of the listed building and adjoining conservation area.

·         A resident raised concerns with the safety of young children as the development would result in additional service vehicles for the new houses and that there was insufficient spaces for refuse collection vehicles. 

·         A resident stated that there should be an alternative route to the site for lorries.

·         A resident stated that there had been no consideration of views from the houses at Aberdeen Park, that the development would result in overlooking to the properties at Aberdeen Park, and that there is a house at Aberdeen Park which is only 6m away from the proposed houses which has not been considered in the Committee Report.

·         Councillor Gantly spoke in opposition to the scheme, and stated that as a result of developments over time young children at the adjacent properties were growing up on a building site.  The Councillor also questioned the report, the plans and the consultation undertaken, and requested Members to defer the item until after a site visit had been undertaken as there were issues around proximity and loss of privacy that needed clarification.

·         The applicant informed Members that the proposal would result in redevelopment of the self-storage facilities and that the scheme had been developed in conjunction with Planning Officers, was policy compliant and a financial contribution to off-site affordable housing has been provided.

·         Members stated that they welcomed the scheme in principle as it was policy compliant but were concerned with the discrepancy between the objectors’ comments and what was stated in the report as to the distances between the homes at Aberdeen Park and the proposed scheme.

·         The Planning Officer stated that the houses at Aberdeen Park were well over 18m from the application site, but that they had ancillary outbuildings within their gardens which are closer to the site boundary.  The Planning Officer stated that the impacts on the houses were considered of greater importance than the outbuildings and that impacts on residential amenity to the houses at Aberdeen Park were not considered unacceptable.

·         A resident stated that the building close to the rear boundary of 136 Aberdeen Park is a house.

Councillor Donovan Hart proposed a motion to defer so as to carry out a site visit to the objector’s property and to investigate whether the building at the rear of 136 Aberdeen Park is a separate house or an outbuilding; and to clarify the distance from the nearest habitable room window of that property to the proposed scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.