Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

None declared

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on to confirm 6^th January 2022

The Committee RESOLVED

1.      That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6^th January 2022 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following addition:

·       That it be recorded that Councillor David Edgar was elected to Chair the meeting of the Committee

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

3)   To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.            In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Place be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

There are none

There were none

Proposal:

Change of use of first floor office use (use class B1a) to 4no residential units (Use class C3). Construction of a two-storey building to the rear to provide office space (use class B1a)

Recommendations:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for change of use of first floor office use (use class B1a) to 4no residential units (Use class C3), with the construction of a two-storey building to the rear to provide office space (use class B1a). The application also sought to provide amendments to the residential entrance at junction of Boundary Street and Calvert Avenue.

He also advised of the contents of the update report, including an updated description (as above) and an additional condition.

Nicholas Jehan (Planning Services) introduced the application highlighting the following:

·       The site location within the Boundary Estate Conservation Area.

·       The characteristics of the area and Walker House, including the existing Ivy on the wall.

·       Key features of proposals including the proposed housing arrangements, new office space, the green biodiverse roof, the amendments to the main entrance to Walker Houses, which should help address ASB, which had already been granted consent under a previous application.

·       The planning history for the site and the reason for refusing the previous (application ref: PA/17/03009) refused on 30 July 2019. The scheme had been amended to address the issues, with regards to the height, massing  and design. Details of these changes were noted. The Committee noted images of the proposed design compared to the previous design.

·       In response to the consultation, 41 letters of objection had been received as well as an additional 9 objections since publication of the Committee Report and further detailed in the update report. They related to a number of issues including: the land use, height, bulk, mass and scale,  amenity impacts, parking impact and the public benefits of the development

·       That Officers had no issues with the land use - both in terms of the proposed office use given the City Fringe Location, or the proposed residential use. This was because this was generally consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The development would provide a variety of dwellings which would be of a suitable high standard.

·       Design and the heritage assessment. Overall, Officers conclude that the issues with the previous application had been addressed. The scheme would preserve the setting or significance of the surrounding Listed Buildings and would only have a negligible impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Balanced against the public benefits, Officers considered that the proposals satisfied the relevant policy tests.

·       Similar to the previous scheme, the impacts in terms of amenity were considered acceptable.

·       It was proposed that conditions would be secured in relation to the maintenance of the Ivy wall and in relation to the proposed biodiversity enhancements.

·       The Committee also noted details of the parking arrangements, the cycle parking,  access and servicing and the waste collection arrangements.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission subject to conditions.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee

The following addressed the Committee raising objections:

·       Gary Groenheim (Walker House resident)

·       Jean Locker (Wargrave House resident)

·       William Mann (Boundary Estate Conservation Group, Cleeve House resident)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

There are none.