Agenda item

Refurbishment and extension of existing building to provide a part 1/part 5 storey building comprising 3,054sqm flexible business (Use Class B1) floorspace and 209 sqm restaurant (Use Class A3) floorspace (1,298sqm overall additional floorspace) with ancillary plant room and storage at basement level.

(Planning application number: P2019/0228/FUL)

Prior to the committee presentation, the planning case officer raised several points of clarifications and corrections, these matters included:

·                     Page 38 of the Agenda, Condition 7 relating to cycle parking provision, the condition notes that the scheme shall provide for no less than 60 spaces. However, a total of 54 spaces are proposed. The provision of 54 spaces is acceptable against planning policy and standards (Appendix 6 of the DMPD requires 41 spaces);

·                     Page 43 Condition 24 relating to the rear wall planter, the proposed planter would be artificial and therefore does not require irrigation, therefore it is suggested that reference to irrigation should be removed from the condition wording;

·                     There was a typo graphical error relating to the address of Item B1, which was immediately rectified by Democratic Services. Letters sent to consultees had the correct site address as does the officer report throughout, therefore this will not prejudice the determination of this item;

·                     Paragraph 10.36 of the report on Page 24 notes the height of the rear boundary wall at 1.9m from the garden level of the neighbouring properties, where in fact the rear boundary wall measures 2.2m from that point (from those properties to the rear);

·                     Paragraph 10.68 of the report (Page 30) notes that the existing 2.7m high rear wall would be extended in height by virtue of an 850mm planter on top bringing the total height of the rear boundary treatment to 3.55m in height ‘as measured from the raised garden level of those properties to the rear, which back onto the site.’ However, the extended boundary treatment due to the introduction of the proposed planter would increase the height of the boundary treatment from 2.2m to a height of 3.0m as measured from the raised garden levels to the rear and the 3.55m measurement as referenced would actually represent the new height of the boundary from the patio level at the application site. This is made clear in the next paragraph 10.69 of the report which addresses the respective level changes;

·                     Paragraph 10.69 which notes the proposed planter would be 800mm in height whereas it would actually measure 850mm in height which is made clear on drawing 3086/221/A.

·                     10 objections were noted within the report (Page 14, paragraph 8.2), however it should be clear that a total of 7 objections were received.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were advised that condition 20 has been agreed with the applicant which ensures that the external part of the rear patio is to be used at certain time of the day protecting the amenity of the adjoining residents.

·         The planning officer informed members that the site has been vacant for a long time and the scheme being proposed would replace the existing floor space with higher quality, more accessible and more flexible employment space.

·         In response to concerns about the scheme’s inability to meet the council’s CO2 reduction target, Officers advised that this will be offset by a carbon offset contribution from the applicant

·         The meeting was informed of overlooking concerns from the proposed scheme into neighbouring habitable rooms and the increased noise and disturbances from users of the patio area. In response Officers highlighted the proposed rear patio area was designed with features to prevent overlooking from it, which included the use of a rear wall planter and use of an obscured glazed canopy which would be installed above the proposed rear patio doors.

• On the matter of overlooking and privacy, an objector expressed concerned in relation to a prospective impact of the development from the upper levels, however, Officers highlighted the separation distanced of 28.8m between the rear wall of the proposed extension and those residential properties to the rear (south) which would ensure that there would not be harmful loss of privacy or mutual overlooking

·         In response to objectors concerns, the agent informed the meeting that they had engaged with local residents to address their concerns by lowering the patio and introduced a canopy and a planter .

·         On the question of whether a condition could be imposed restricting smoking by users of the patio , the planning officer advised that it is not possible to impose a condition restricting people from smoking however it could control the hours of use of the terrace and recommend that a management plan be considered by officers .

·         On the question on whether there was a specific condition to install window blinds to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, officer stated that although a condition regarding privacy is it included but nothing specific on blinds.

·         In response to the use of artificial plant instead of natural plants, the meeting was advised that this was suggested by applicants to mitigate the issue of overlooking with some form of screening and was agreed as a long term solution in a sustainable way.  A suggestion on whether the height of the rear wall could be extended was noted.

·         Members agreed for two additional conditions to be included with the permission, a condition to extend the boundary wall to protect the amenity rather than the use of an artificial plant and another condition for applicants to submit a management plan which will address smoking concerns from users on the roof terrace. Members agreed that the wording of the two additional conditions be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report, and additional conditions noted 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.

Condition 24 - Rear wall planter (and maintenance of plants and irrigation details)

Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, details of a raised rear boundary wall and/or planter screen (to include the use of live natural planting and an ongoing maintenance regime) to the external terrace area and the properties to the rear (south) of the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the external terrace area being brought into use. There after the raised boundary wall or planter and plants shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the life of the development.

REASON:  To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Condition 25 – Rear patio area operational management plan

CONDITION: Details of measures to adequately mitigate against noise and disturbance affecting neighbouring residential properties and an accompanying Operational Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the external patio terrace area at ground floor level being brought into use.

The building shall thereafter be operated strictly in accordance with the approved measures to mitigate against any harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and the approved Operational Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   

REASON: In the interests of the residential amenities of the occupants of adjacent residential dwellings.