Agenda item

Proposed refurbishment and extension to existing telephone exchange building and the construction of two part three, part four storey buildings to the rear to provide a total of 95 one and two bedroom flats, with 91 on site car parking spaces – ST ANTHONYS.  36 objections and one letter of support had been received.

South East Water raised no objection to the application in principle.  They had requested, by way of additional conditions, further information regarding the impact on surface and ground water quality with a hydrogeological risk assessment for the site, and phase 2 site investigations to identify historic contamination details of pilling methods on the site. 

The lead local flood authority raised no objection in principle and requested by way of condition, information relating to the SUD system.

An additional condition relating to access to the flat roofs on the blocks of flats for emergency and maintenance only was also suggested.

Ms Clarke addressed the committee in objection stating that there were too many units proposed for the site and that the development was out of keeping with the surrounding area.  The increased traffic would increase the danger for pedestrians and the access/egress had a restricted view.  Ms Clarke also stated that the proposed extension would be too high, resulting in overlooking and a loss of light and privacy to the surrounding properties.

Ms Mason addressed the committee in objection stating that the development was excessive in size and number of units proposed.  There would be an increase in parking and other traffic issues, with the access being too close to a ‘blind’ corner.  Ms Mason also stated that the scheme would result in overlooking and loss of light for neighbouring properties.

Councillor Tutt, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that the scheme would be an overdevelopment.  The increased traffic would exacerbate the existing parking and pedestrian safety issues.  Councillor Tutt stated that the residents were in support of the redevelopment of the site, with a scheme sympathetic to the neighbouring residents and current issues as stated.

Mr Mohsin, Architect, addressed the committee in response stating that the scheme had been designed in consultation with the Council’s Planning department with the aim of regenerating a dilapidated area.  Mr Mohsin also advised that a consultation exercise had been carried out with residents to address their concerns with regarding to overlooking and loss of light.  Amenity space had been provided within the site, and the redevelopment of the existing building reduced the impact of demolition activities.

The committee discussed the application, and whilst they agreed with the redevelopment of the site in principle, it was felt that the proposed scheme was an overdevelopment and out of keeping with the surrounding properties.

NB: Councillor Taylor requested a named vote.

RESOLVED:  (By 5 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.  For: Councillors Choudhury, Miah, Murray, Robinson and Sabri.  Against: Councillor Taylor. Abstentions: Councillors Ballard and Jenkins).That permission be refused on the grounds that 1) By virtue of the scale of development, the number of units, the height, bulk and mass of the proposed buildings on the site (blocks 2 and 3) the proposal is considered an unneighbourly over development of the site with an overbearing relationship, detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties by way of loss of light, outlook, privacy from overlooking to properties and their rear gardens contrary to saved policy HO20 of the Borough Plan 2007, Policy B2 of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 2) By virtue of the height, scale, bulk and mass of the proposed buildings the development is out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area contrary to saved policies UHT1 and UHT2 of the Borough Plan 2007, policy D10a of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Appeal: Should the applicant appeal the decision the appropriate course of action to be followed, taking into account the criteria set by the Planning Inspectorate, is considered to be written representations.