Agenda item

The application was for the outline application for planning permission for the erection of a four storey building comprising use Class A1-A5 on the ground floor and 16 residential units (Use Class C) on the three upper floors (with access, layout and scale to be considered and appearance and landscaping being reserved matters) following the demolition of existing buildings. (Amended plans & Additional Information rec'd 14/07/2016). (Additional information rec'd 23/09/2016).

Members received the following updates:

‘The legal agreement to secure SAMM has been completed.

The agent wishes to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact the original building was rebuilt following a fire in the 1950’s. Officers note this submission; however it is not clear the extent of the damage or the rebuild works. It is however clear from photographs of the existing building that other than the interest and quality of the façade of the building, the existing building has little architectural merit. There is also no objection being raised to the demolition of the existing building.

Deletion of the following text from the final sentence of paragraph 7.8.1

As detailed above this contribution includes the SANG payment but is in addition to the SAMM payment.’

Some Members felt that the proposal would be an excellent opportunity for the Town Centre but some questioned the lack of affordable housing. Officers explained that the policy allowed for negotiation regarding viability of the provision of affordable housing.  The consultant’s findings were that it would not be viable to provide this.

Although no amenity space had been adopted for the site, Members were advised that each residential unit would have a terrace of balcony. There would also be allocated space for bins and cycles.

Some Members felt that the façade of the existing building should remain as it was an example of attractive architecture from the turn of the last century and that the building should be locally listed.  Officers advised that the conservation officer had raised no objection to the building being demolished particularly when the sides and back of the building were purely functional and had no ascetic merit.

Members were reminded that the design and materials of the building was a reserved matter and would therefore return to the Planning Applications Committee for consideration.  It was also noted that the proposal considered previously the retention of the front of the building but it had not lent itself to development for retail and residential.

Resolved that application 16/0447 be approved as amended subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor David Mansfield and seconded by Councillor Robin Perry.

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillor Victoria Wheeler