Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and construction of a four-storey building (with basement levels) comprising Office use (Class E) with associated works.

(Planning application number: P2022/4253/FUL)

In the discussion the following main points were made:

·       The planning officer advised that since the publication of the report, further representations had been received to bring the total number of representations up to 28, two of which were in support of the scheme. An update to the daylight/sunlight assessment had also been submitted which matched the rear elevation to No 37 Bastwick Street.

·       In response to questions from members, the planning officer advised that the height of the proposed building was 13.6 metres. This was the same height as the refused application. However, the depth at the first, second and third floor had been reduced for this scheme. The separation distance was 13.9 at second floor level. At first floor level it would be greater than 7.5 metres.

·       Members noted that there were proposed conditions regarding obscure glazing, a noise limiting condition regarding the mechanical plant and a condition requiring any change to the provision of workspace to the submission of a planning application. The workspace included 4 SME work units, which would also be secured with the Deed of Planning Obligation. 

·       The daylight/sunlight assessment had included the new scheme at Peartree Street.

·       Regarding the local context, the bulk and massing had been reduced in this scheme, the second and third floor was more consistent and was considered more coherent than the previously refused application.

·       The Committee heard objections from three residents. The concerns raised included: the lack of consultation particularly for the most affected residential block; that the noise condition had not taken into account the revised positioning of mechanical plant; the discrepancies between the two sunlight/daylight reports; the destruction of the rear courtyard space bounded at the west by 44 Peartree Street which had previously been preserved during development and concern regarding the reduced daylight/sunlight to the garden at 45 Central Street due to the height of the development.

·       A resident also requested that, should the application be approved, work on the site only take place from 8am to 5pm and not on Saturdays.

·       The Committee heard from the applicant who made the following main points: the application included an opportunity to provide office space and to address an obvious gap in the street scene; significant massing reductions had been made at the rear compared to the previously refused scheme; a more traditional design with a mansard style roof had been submitted; the garden at 45 Central Street continued to receive sunlight and the test figures improved significantly after the date of the equinox; the reasons for the differences between the two daylight/sunlight models were also outlined i.e. the applicants’ daylight/sunlight report included OS data, drone analysis and also differences in the residential addresses included in the report; conditions had been proposed regarding eco green roofs, automated roller blinds and obscure glazing; a further height reduction to the building was not feasible due to the height of required office space and would be an under-optimisation of the site.

·       In response to questions from the Committee, it was noted that there was a proposed condition that noise from mechanical plant would be measured once it was in place and running before occupation of the development and there would be suitable acoustic screening in place; hours of operation were normally limited to the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday - Friday and from 8am to 1pm on Saturday with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays however the applicant agreed to a condition that hours of working would be from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday only; the rear elevation followed a more traditional aesthetic;

·       The planning officer advised that statutory consultation requirements had been met.

The Committee considered the application and the representations made by the objectors and the applicant.  The Committee considered that the noise condition proposed would alleviate concerns regarding noise disturbance and regarding daylight/sunlight, the impact appeared to be quite low and there was not sufficient material considerations to reject the application.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to amend condition 12 to amend the hours of construction. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion that plans be submitted requiring the OS data to be marked on the drawings for all floors to indicate the height of the building. The exact wording be delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Ibrahim 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 and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report, with the amendment to condition 12 and an additional condition as 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.