Agenda and minutes

Councillors Fisher and Payne.

There were none.

16/01515/FUL 252 Bath Road

Councillor Stennett and Councillor Hay.

There were none. 

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th April 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

EP introduced the application for planning permission to demolish all the structures on the site – the dwelling and buildings currently used for Bath Road Market, and to replace it with a ground floor retail unit, seven duplex apartments and a town house, with a separate detached dwelling at the rear.  Bin and bike storage is provided at the back, and an archway to Langdon Road serves as the main access to the site. Highways Officers are happy with the proposal.

It is a prominent site, with a significant tree on the corner.  The applicant has made several significant revisions to address concerns regarding design, and also the impact on the tree.  The conservation officer and trees officer support the current proposal.  There are concerns from the Architects Panel, regarding the size, materials and design, but officers have considered these matters and feel that the planning balance comes down in favour of the proposal.  There will be a purpose-built commercial unit on the ground floor, which will provide jobs, and the site is situated in a sustainable location.  The recommendation is to approve subject to conditions, including the extra conditions circulated on the blue update. 

Public Speaking

Neighbour, in objection

This proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, a monolithic mass at variance with its surroundings; it does not respect Langdon Road where it is mainly sited, and is not of sufficient quality to warrant approval.  The Civic Society has stated that two storeys would fit better than three, and the Architects Panel suggested that losing the town house altogether would give the development more space.  The Residents Association consider it an overdevelopment of the site, which should be scaled back.  None of this has happened, with hardly any size change since they were made. 

The conservation officer suggests that the massing and scale would not be out of keeping with other three-storey buildings in Bath Road, but the majority of the development is in Langdon Road, where there are no three-storey buildings.  Langdon Road is described in the Leckhampton Character Appraisal as attractive late Victorian and Edwardian red brick semi-detached houses with unifying characteristics, therefore dominant and distinctive within the street scene.  This is not consistent with CBC’s policy CP7: this design is not consistent with its surroundings, does not fit in with the existing buildings, is overly dense, out of place, and has little amenity for its residents.  Is led to believe that it is the best compromise that can be reached, but CBC planning didn’t compromise when a coach house was refused 50 metres away behind the police station, describing it as anachronistic and incongruous,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286.

EP introduced the application for planning permission as above, to allow the applicant to run her business from home.  Opening hours requested are 9.30am-5.30pm Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, and 2.00-8.00pm Thursday.  The applicant anticipates seeing four clients a day, making this a relatively low key use.  Officers feel that the dimensions and design will have an acceptable impact on the area, and County Highways do not have any issues.  The recommendation is to permit, with conditions.

Public speaking

Neighbour (neutral)

Does not object to the planning application per se, but would like to raise the following concerns and request that certain conditions be applied.  Firstly, it has been suggested that four vehicles could be parked at the premises at any one time, but this is not possible – there isn’t enough room at the side of the properties where the front doors are situated.  Canterbury Walk is quite narrow and it is frequently difficult to accommodate delivery, maintenance and refuse vehicles together with resident parking.  With clients manoeuvring in and out regularly and extra parking on the road, this may cause obstruction and further nuisance to through traffic and to neighbours’ access. 

The second point concerns her privacy and security.  There is no restriction on the number of clients attending the business between 9.30am and 5.30pm, with a late evening of 8.30pm.  If Members look at the photograph attached to her letter of representation, they will note that her front door, kitchen window and rear gate face No 118 within 6-8feet.  There is a 3-foot fence dividing the properties, which belongs to No. 118. There will be a loss of privacy and security with clientele continuously passing her door and window.  Her security light will be going on and off late into the evening, particularly in the winter months, which may be a cause of concern for neighbours. 

If the Committee is mindful to grant permission, would be grateful of a requirement for No. 118 to provide fencing to the maximum height allowed along from the garage to the end of the bungalows, which would afford some privacy and security.

Member debate

SW:  is sorry not to have been on Planning View, but on the point about the security fence, will be interested to hear comments from officers as to whether this can be included as a condition to smooth the waters.

MC:  was on site visit, and agrees with the officer.  This proposal will not be intrusive, but his concerns are two-fold:  there will always be a certain amount of traffic and parking issues generated by a business run from home.  This is a narrow and busy road, near the junction with Salisbury Avenue, which is also a busy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 287.

There were none.