Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for approval as detailed in the report.  The loss of the community facility is acceptable in principle if it can be demonstrated to provide enhancement.  This application was marketed for over 12 months.  The application has been supported by several viability appraisals demonstrating that the building is not suitable for alternative use.  There have been 19 representations overall of which 11 are objections.  A condition has been included requiring the building to be constructed in gritstone to better blend in with neighbouring properties. It is acknowledged that there would be some impact on the amenity of the existing properties.  Although there is no parking included in this application no objection has been received from the Highway Authority based on safety.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Hugh Wright – Objector

·         Ian Smith – Objector

·         Will Thomas – Objector – Statement read out by Democratic Services Staff

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The following points were made and discussed:

·         The road is narrow outside of this development and there is pavement only on one side.  This development will result in additional permanent parking.

·         Locals had not been made aware that the building was up for sale and therefore have not had the opportunity to retain the building for community use. This building was marketed for over 16 months with a commercial building company and this has been confirmed by the Planning Officer.

·         The space between the downstairs windows and those of the house opposite is 10 metres, this would breach the approved standards however this occurs with other existing properties on this street, which is a public street.

·         There was a discussion about the bin storage and electricity meter as there would only be a very narrow gap between the buildings.

·         There are concerns that this will be a holiday let and not purchased by local people that need housing on a permanent basis.  The principal of open market dwelling is acceptable for this application and there is no requirement to make it affordable housing.

·         Members felt it appeared to be a positive approach to remove the current building and replace it with a more attractive building.

·         The ownership of the wall and the boundary were discussed. Members would like clarification on who owns the land and the wall and the boundary line.

·         There was concern expressed as to how this would be built and maintained given the constrains of space and access.  There will be a construction management plan which dictates how the build would progress. 

·         Members felt there would be too much massing on such a small site and questioned if it would be possible to reduce the size of the building.  The footprint of the building on the application is not allowing for the servicing of the building.

A motion to defer the application to allow further discussion regarding the boundary of this site and ownership, along with the size of the building, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.  If the issues can be resolved then the decision to be delegated to officers, if not then the application to be brought back to the committee for a decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further discussions between the Applicant and the Planning Officer regarding:

1.    How the boundary between this site and The Rookery next door shall be treated along with clarification on who owns the land, wall and boundary line.

2.    The massing of the proposed building on a small site and if the size of the proposed building could be reduced as the current footprint does not allow for servicing of the building.