Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal:Full application for the proposed erection of a three storey building consisting of 22 residential units following demolition of existing building.

Applicant: Classicstone Properties

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 51 to 116.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification that previously refused scheme 181723 had been appealed and a decision was pending. The applicant had given an undertaking that the appeal would be withdrawn if this application was approved;

·           Clarification of paragraph 118, in summary to state that the Council’s Highways Officer raised no objections based on parking space provision due to the highly sustainable town centre location;

·           Examples of other town centre developments which had lower car parking spaces per unit than present in the subject application;

·           Free parking times for both Easthampstead Road East and West public car parks, which were located nearby the subject application site;

·           Clarification that paragraph 123 referred to a dual level cycle parking solution, which was not an adopted policy. Specific details would be resolved as part of the pre commencement requirements in Condition 9;

·           Clarification of paragraph 127, to state that access to the site was via the adopted highway, with the private road access being limited to part of the western side of the building;

·           Clarification that paragraph 132 should refer to an incident on 5 December 2018, not 2019;

·           Additional clarification regarding delivery arrangements and construction phases relating to Condition 6;

·           Clarification that although there were four departures from internal living room space requirements, these were Borough Design Guide guidelines only and not policy requirements;

·           Correction that the commuted sum quoted in paragraph 162 should state £50,610.71;

·           Correction that paragraph 165 should refer to Rooks Nest Wood SANG.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that his main concern with this application was with regards to parking provision. Andrew added that some residents and visitors may struggle to find parking, which could lead to ‘spill over’ onto other roads with parking restrictions. Andrew commented that he was pleased to see the inclusion of photovoltaic panels within the application, and queried whether more than the conditioned percentage of energy from renewable sources could be provided. Simon Taylor, Case Officer, stated that all spaces were allocated and disabled spaces and electric vehicle charging spaces would be managed via a car parking management plan. With regards to the percentage of energy from renewable sources, this was conditioned to generate 10 percent of the predicted energy requirements for the development. The Committee could add an informative suggesting that the applicant provided over and above the conditioned 10 percent of generated predicted energy requirements for the development.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether there was adequate alternative parking available within the town centre setting, and whether the provided parking was policy compliant. Simon Weeks stated that previous town centre developments had set a precedent of providing less spaces that units, whilst the subject application provided spaces equal to unit numbers. Although the proposals were not policy compliant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53