There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Jeffree replaced Councillor Williams.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2013 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2013 were submitted and signed.

A total of 1 application report is included on this agenda for decision, of   which 1 will be within the Government’s target dates for determination of applications. 

On 23 October 2013 there were 0 applications over 8 weeks not yet determined but under consideration by the Development Management Section Head. 

The Committee received a report advising that there were no outstanding planning applications as at 23 October 2013.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

Application to demolish the existing building and to redevelop the site to provide 1,632 sqm of office (Class B1a) floorspace and 22 residential flats with associated surface and basement car parking, cycle and bin storage and landscaping.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head. 

The Chair invited Mr Tom Rumble, agent for the Applicant to address the Committee.

Mr Rumble explained that the application had been the subject of considerable pre-application discussion with planning officers.   He noted that the building would have an appropriate relationship with its neighbours and advised that the development would provide high quality office and residential use.  The building at 32, Clarendon Road was currently vacant and detracted from the street scene. 

Mr Rumble then advised on the advantages of the application: 

·        The floor space for the proposal would increase from 806 sqm to 1218 sqm which would accord with the Council’s objective to provide greater employment. 

·        The development would provide enhanced office accommodation in Clarendon Road.

·        The flats at the rear would contribute to housing needs in the Borough.

Mr Rumble noted that the frontage to Clarendon Road would present as office accommodation whilst to the rear the building would appear as residential space.  These features would provide an acceptable interface with both Clarendon Road to the west and residential properties to the east.

Mr Rumble added that the application met all requirements for parking and amenity space.  There would be soft landscaping at the rear of the building which would add to the improved appearance.  He concluded by stating that the scheme had significant merits and that there had been no objections forthcoming from neighbouring residents. 

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Sharpe noted that the development would be an improvement on the ugly building currently on this site.  He said that quality of office space was of great importance and considered that the soft landscaping would enhance the site.  Councillor Sharpe agreed with officers that the application should be approved and said that a residential component in offices could be supported in this case, as it was an office-led scheme that provided for an increase in both the quantity and the quality of office floorspace in Clarendon Road.  He felt, however, that it was right that the threshold for affordable housing in this development should be in accordance with the Council’s adopted policies. 

Councillor Watkin endorsed Councillor Sharpe’s views but noted that accommodation in the flats appeared very small.  He asked whether the flats provided sufficient space.

The Major Cases Manager replied that the accommodation met minimum internal standards.

Councillor Watkin expressed concern regarding car parking spaces.  He noted that there appeared to be sufficient spaces for residents but very little parking for employees in the offices.

The Major Cases Manager explained that Clarendon Road had the lowest maximum car parking standards in the Borough due to the high level of availability of both trains and buses in this area.  He reminded the meeting of Government advice on use of public transport and advised that the quantity of parking spaces at this development was in accordance with the Council’s adopted policies.  He agreed that parking facility was lower at this site than at other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.