Agenda item

Planning permission for the conversion of existing hospital buildings to create 48 residential units with associated external alterations, parking and landscaping – MEADS.

The Committee was advised by way of an addendum report, that amended plans had been received to reduce the number of 1 bed flats and increase the number of 2 bed flats.

A written representation supporting the proposal was read aloud by the Interim Head of Planning on behalf of Mr Ben Daines of ECE Planning, agent for the application. The speech highlighted the need for a varied mix of housing accommodation in a sustainable location.

A written representation against the proposal was read aloud by the Interim Head of Planning on behalf of Mr Denis Scard Chair of the Meads Community Association. The speech raised a number of issues regarding overdevelopment, lack of affordable housing and parking. In response to the revised scheme the Meads Community Association (MCA) maintained its opposition to the application and requested the decision was deferred for larger family size units.

Councillor Smart, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He stated that he did not oppose the change of use or principle of residential development, but a mix of bigger units was needed. He raised concerns regarding lack of parking and overdevelopment and agreed with the MCA that the application should be deferred.

In discussing the application, Members were of a mixed view; they welcomed the development of residential use, retention of gardens, design and revised mix of bedrooms, but were disappointed at the lack of affordable housing and that the units only just complied with the minimum space standards.

One member questioned the gain in 2 bed 2 person units and requested the application be deferred for negotiations to increase the size of the 1 and 2 bed units. The Specialist Advisor explained although the floor space remained the same, the arrangements between units and the internal arrangement of some units had changed.  He further added that whilst it would be beneficial to provide more spacious units, some of the 1 bed 1 person units would be large enough for double occupancy and met with national space standards. Satisfied with officer’s explanation, the Councillor withdrew the request for the application to be deferred.

One member sought clarification on the context of an abandoned building and vacant building credit. The Specialist Advisor explained that he did not believe the building had been abandoned, partly due to amount of time it had been vacant. Furthermore, if vacant building credit was applied, it would remove the requirement for affordable housing.

For clarity of the report, the Lawyer advised the officer’s recommendation for a S106 legal agreement would not include affordable housing because of the vacant building credit applied to the development.

Councillor Taylor proposed a motion to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Miah.

RESOLVED (Unanimous): That Planning permission be granted, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out in the report.