Agenda item

Recommendation:  Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed creation of 24No residential units consisting of 10 x 1 bedroom, 10 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3-bedroom units with ground floor foyer, communal roof terrace, addition of balconies and dormers, changes to fenestration and provision of parking and bin storage following demolition of existing roof structures and link between No 47 and the main building

Applicant: Mr Bryan Naftalin

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 19 to 76.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Correction to the first line of agenda page 30 to state a contribution of £520 per unit to MyJourney;

·         Point of clarification in relation to car parking;

·         Point of clarification in relation to the commuted sum.

Angus Ross commented that listed building consent would be required at a later stage, and was noted as such within an informative. Angus added that the building to the rear of the site had permission to be demolished and replaced, and noted that application 211977 was granted planning permission for this site in July 2021 and the Committee needed to take this in to account when considering the application in front of them.

Stephen Conway queried whether there was any requirement for on-site affordable housing as part of the prior approval application for 27 units. Senjuti Manna, case officer, confirmed that there was not a requirement for on-site affordable housing as part of the prior approval application. Stephen Conway commented that it was unfortunate that there was no affordable housing provided on site, and added that whilst he had some concerns with the proposals there was a long and complex planning history which constrained what the Committee might consider as reasons to refuse the application.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that he was pleased to see that a number of concerns had been addressed following on from the prior approval application in July 2021. Andrew queried whether access to the roof terrace for persons with disabilities had been addressed and whether the units designed to be accessible would have access to a balcony to ensure amenity space for those persons who could not access the roof terrace. Senjuti Manna confirmed that the roof terrace would not have any lift access, whilst accessible units would be required by condition to provide balconies.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the disabled car parking spaces could be moved closer to the building via condition, rather than being dealt with via the parking management plan. Brain Conlon, Development Management Operational Lead, stated that condition 7 included a strategy to provide the disabled spaces on-site which would give the local planning authority the ability to control where the disabled spaces were to be provided. Kamran Akhter, Principal Highways Development Management Officer, stated that the provision of disabled spaces would be managed via the car parking management plan. The Committee insisted that every effort be made to situate the disabled car parking spaces closer to the proposed units.

Andrew Mickleburgh sought clarity regarding the decision to keep all car parking spaces as unallocated, and queried whether there would be any parking for the remaining retail units on the site. Senjuti Manna stated that the site was located within a sustainable town centre location, and no retail parking was proposed as retail users could park in a number of public car parks including Easthampstead Road car park, whilst cycle storage was proposed for staff of retail units. The 10 one-bedroom units were proposed to be car free, whilst the remaining 14 units would have access to 15 unallocated spaces which was deemed acceptable by highways officers due to the sustainable location. Visitors could make use of public car parks such as the Easthampstead Road car park. Kamran Akhter stated that unallocated parking provided flexibility and would help ensure that spaces could be used efficiently.

Pauline Jorgensen stated that she was very concerned that providing unallocated parking could mean that everyone who purchased a flat might expect a parking space whilst half of residents would miss out each day. Pauline added that she would prefer if spaces were allocated, and this was made clear to people when purchasing units. Brian Conlon stated that unallocated spaces provided more flexibility and could serve different users at different times of the day, for example if someone worked at night whilst the other person worked in the day. Brian added that this development was in a sustainable location, and noted that highways officers had looked at the scheme in detail and had not raised an objection. A number of nearby developments had been supported by the Council at levels below the Council’s car parking standards, whilst developments which promoted less car use met the Council’s climate emergency and sustainability ambitions. Pauline Jorgensen commented that she was very concerned with the approach to allocation given that the development was 55 car parking spaces adrift on the Council’s standards.

Bill Soane queried where the stairways would be situated within the development and sought assurances that these were adequate for fire evacuation purposes. Senjuti Manna stated that there was one stairway in the main lobby area, whilst there was a second stairwell which could be used in the event of a fire. Bill Soane queried whether a communal fire alarm might be considered on a development of this nature. Senjuti Manna stated that this would be a building control consideration, and details would be submitted and reviewed by officers. Angus Ross commented that this would be an ideal building to include sprinklers, whilst noting that this was not a planning consideration.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that she was concerned to see that only two accessible car parking spaces were to be provided when 5 accessible units were proposed. Rachelle queried whether the units would all meet the internal space requirements. Senjuti Manna stated that all units would meet the national space standards, whilst a roof terrace was also proposed, and all balconies would include a protection screen which would remove the issue of overlooking.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that sprinklers would be desirable within the development, and queried whether the commuted sum would go towards new affordable units or towards renovating existing units. Senjuti Manna confirmed that commuted sums went to a central pool where affordable housing officers allocated funding towards a variety of projects. Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey commented that she was very concerned with the unallocated car parking proposals, and added that public transport was not always convenient within the Borough, whilst many of the flats may own two vehicles.

Pauline Jorgensen felt that a condition which required spaces to be allocated to individual units would be appropriate as it would provide transparency to the potential future owners of the units.

Sam Akhtar was pleased to see that forty percent of the units would be one-bedroom flats, which would be sought after by first time buyers. Sam was concerned that even the one-bedroom units might have two vehicles if purchased by young professionals, and felt that allocated parking would be more appropriate and transparent.

Stephen Conway stated that the Committee needed to be mindful that problems relating to car parking would occur whether the spaces were unallocated or not, as considerably less spaces would be provided than parking standards would normally require. Until more sustainable transport solutions were readily available, Stephen was of the opinion that the professional view with regards to the flexibility provided by unallocated spaces was more appropriate in this case.

Andrew Mickleburgh understood that the opportunity to request additional parking spaces had now passed, and there would be positives and negatives to allocating all of the car parking spaces. On balance, Andrew was content to side with the officer recommendation to retain the car parking spaces as unallocated.

Brian Conlon stated that there was a good deal of control within condition 7 for a car parking management plan to be provided, which would include measures to make future occupants aware of the car parking situation. Brian added that any prospective occupant would only consider a one-bedroom car free unit within the town centre if that met their needs. The professional view of highways officers was that unallocated car parking was more appropriate for the number of car parking spaces at the site whilst providing greater flexibility for occupants. Additional wording could be inserted into condition 7, or provided as a standalone informative, which would encourage the developer to make occupants aware of the car parking situation.

Pauline Jorgensen proposed an additional condition requiring details of parking to be submitted, including which spaces were to be allocated to which units, with the final wording to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. This proposal was seconded by Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey, carried, and added to the list of conditions.

Brian Conlon noted that condition 7 would have to be amended to remove the reference to unallocated parking.

RESOLVED That application number 214184 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 20 to 28, additional condition requiring details of parking to be submitted, including which spaces were to be allocated to which units, with the final wording to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman as resolved by the Committee, and amended condition 7 to remove the reference to unallocated car parking, and subject to legal agreement.