Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a part four storey, part three storey, part single storey rear extension and conversion of first floor accommodation to provide extended ground floor retail (Class A1) accommodation with residential accommodation over in the form of 6 No. one bedroom and 4 No. two bedroom flats with ground floor roof level amenity space parking, bin and cycle stores.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘Amended drawings have been provided which retain the ground and first floor windows in the front elevation of the existing building.  The Council’s Conservation and Design Officer has confirmed that the amendments do not overcome his earlier objection to the proposal.

The Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer has indicated that the site benefits from a previous planning permission for residential development without conditions to limit noise disturbance to future occupiers and additional conditions may not be imposed.  He indicates that in order to protect the amenity of future occupiers we should have required a noise impact assessment for that proposal since that there is considerable noise here from night time entertainment with associated activities and general road traffic movements.  The same requirements would apply for this application.  [Officer comment: The requirement of the EHO could be considered by condition (if minded to approve)].

LLFA have requested further details.’

An email had been received by the applicant:

‘Given the stated grounds for refusal the Officer’s Report makes scant mention of the consequences of the Extant Consent, which allows for a complete demolition of all structures on the site. Had the Applicant acted on that Consent at the outset, which he is now likely to be compelled to continue with, and demolished the building on High Street then there would have been no original building against which much of the apparent criticism of the Application’s new building along St Georges Road is based. Instead the Extant Consent allows the demolition of the building on the frontage that the report clearly states forms part of the High Street Character Area and seeks to protect. This will now be lost, and it was to avoid this unhappy situation that this scheme design and Application sought to avert.’

Members felt that the proposal impacted on the High Street character and they had concerns that it did not provide any parking for the units.

Resolved that application 17/0653 be refused for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Vivienne Chapman.  

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 refuse the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, PatTedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.