Agenda item

An outline application for a mixed-use development of up to 30 residential units (Class C3) and up to 1,728m² of office floor space (Class B1a) in a building up to 8 storeys high

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of one letter in response to the application.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager drew the meeting’s attention to the Update Sheet and noted that a formal request by the applicant for an extension of time for the completion of the section 106 undertaking had been agreed by the Development Management Section Head.  Recommendation B had consequently been changed to allow time for the undertaking to be checked. 

Councillor Jeffree advised that, were the Committee to approve the outline plans whilst not raising concerns regarding the details, it would be difficult to reverse their decision at a later date.  He added that he would wish to see drawings of the proposal in the context of the surrounding buildings.  In particular he would wish to understand the impact the proposal would have on the listed buildings: the hotel and former stables range. 

Councillor Jeffree proposed that the application be deferred in order to request that the developer provide greater details. 

Councillor Watkin said that the proposal was unclear.  He advised that the site was a somewhat confused area and that the ‘mix’ of residential / office space needed to be clarified before the Committee could agree and approve the application. 

Councillor Derbyshire agreed with Councillor Jeffree’s point that greater detail could have been provided.  He drew attention to the nearby Holiday Inn which he considered to be an attractive building.  He felt that the entrance to the hotel should not be downgraded by the sight of refuse bins and general residential ‘clutter’ associated with the proposed development. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager pointed out that the current application was for outline planning permission.  He noted that the developer had asked for extra time in order to complete the s.106 undertaking and suggested that this would provide an opportunity to request information on further details.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager stressed that the developer did not seek approval for design within the current application.  Were the Committee to find the design unacceptable at the next stage of application, they could refuse to approve a reserved matters application at that point. 

With regard to Councillor Watkins’ concerns regarding the ‘mix’ of uses, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that conditions 14 and 15 set appropriate parameters and that this should help to address those concerns. 

Addressing matters relevant to the Holiday Inn, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the application would have no unfavourable effect on the hotel.  Bins and cycles were currently left adjacent to the hotel’s entrance; the proposal would have no more adverse impact than the current arrangements.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager agreed that additional details could be requested if desired. 

The Chair asked whether the Committee would have adequate powers to refuse a reserved matters application at the site at a later date if they agreed the design parameters within the current proposal.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the current application asked only for access arrangements to be approved.  He assured the meeting that if the applicant wished to continue with the development, detailed plans would be submitted at a later date.  The application could be refused then if Members were not satisfied with the proposals.       

Councillor Sharpe agreed that possible unacceptable designs should be dealt with at the next stage in the procedure.  There were no grounds for refusal at the current time. 

Councillor Sharpe reminded the meeting that refusal was only appropriate where harm could result from the scheme going ahead.  He drew attention to page 44 of the agenda and noted that, as the Council’s design team had concluded that there would be ‘less than substantial harm’, there could be no reason to refuse the application.  Were Members to consider that the outline plan was unacceptable then they should vote for a refusal; alternatively they should wait until the reserved matters came to Committee. 

The Chair said that he too had a degree of unease regarding the application and advised that it would be possible to defer a decision whilst awaiting further information in addition to the likely impact on the listed building.  He cautioned the Committee that there was insufficient reason to refuse the application outright. 

Councillor Jeffree MOVED that the decision be deferred pending;

·        the receipt of additional information regarding the impact of the proposal in the context of the area and nearby heritage assets 

·        the provision of 3-D views from all vistas in order to assess the proposal’s massing and impact on the area.

On being put to the committee the Motion was CARRIED

RESOLVED –

That the decision be deferred pending receipt of additional information regarding the building’s massing and impact on the surrounding area and nearby heritage assets.