Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report relating to the British Telecom building site seeking planning permission for a new sliding vehicle access gate to Oriel Road, replacement of existing gate to Vittoria Walk and new metal railings on top of the existing low level brick wall opposite Wolseley Terrace.  The application was at committee due to the impact on the conservation area, listed building and design approach.  The application had been deferred at the January 2021 planning meeting for further revisions and justification.  Revised plans had been submitted and considered, notably these were the boundary facing Oriel Road was now reduced to 1.6m; the sliding gate was now similar to neighbouring property and would be similar height and the brick wall with railings would also be similar to the surrounding area.

Public speaker, Mr Ratcliffe, spoke in objection to the application stating that the unattractive and unsympathetic location, design and appearance of the proposed railings would change the appearance of the Grade II listed Wolseley Terrace and result in visual clutter, contrary to policy MP8 of the conservation area appraisal.  He raised the issue of increased flood risk to the lower ground floors of buildings in Wolseley Terrace and contested the application was unacceptable from a security and environmental standpoint.  He stated the harm to Wolseley Terrace could be avoided by an alternative location and said that less harmful options had not been explored.

In response to members’ questions, the Planning Officer confirmed:-

• The flooding issue was not referred to in the Officer’s report because as the proposal was classed as minor development, the impact of flooding is considered under government advice which is that this level of development would not require any risk assessment or have any potential impact, so was not taken into consideration.
• The 74 letters of notification were sent to all properties that joined the boundary to the BT building.  As the BT building is large many letters went to properties at the rear.
• Regarding the securing of the underpass, this was slightly discussed but BT did not consider it a viable option and wanted to continue with what was originally proposed.
• Access to the site and Wolseley Terrace for heavy maintenance vehicles and equipment, was wholly up to BT’s ownership and was a civil matter.
• The Officer was unsure about an objection in the papers (page 23) with no indication as to whom this related.  He suggested it could be anonymous.
• The Officer was not sure what engagement was made between BT and residents of Wolseley Terrace, stating it was up to BT to determine that.
• The reason for deferral was to understand BT’s rationale for this and a member wished to know more about the consultation and whether people got a letter from BT.  The Officer stated that revised plans were received quite late on and Officers did not feel there was a great deal of difference to what was originally proposed, so a summary was added to the report the day before it’s deadline so as not to delay the report further.  The BT letter basically stated the reasons for access to the site and reasons why they would like to do it, which predominantly related to security. The Officer was more concerned about the impact of the railings.

During the member debate the following points were made:-

• Did not feel this had progressed very far.  This is a conservation area and was this necessary.  It should not have a harmful effect or detract from the central conservation and think it does. BT appeared not to have consulted with neighbours. 
• In principle think BT’s suggestion of the addition of railings on the brick wall not a bad one and as seen by properties nearby they look elegant.  Several members had no objections to the railings and agreed this might make the property look better.
• In serious doubt though was the impact on Wolseley Terrace and agree with the objector that the plans will detract from the value of the properties if there was restricted access even though that is a civil matter.  BT should move those railings some distance from Wolseley Terrace, have a social conscience and need to take a more responsible attitude.
• Happy with railings on Vittoria Walk and Oriel Road.  Solution is to secure the undercroft and need to take seriously paragraph 194 of MPO with clear and convincing justification for significant harm. 
• Problems with this proposal just from point of view of flooding.  Where are the gullies in Wolseley Terrace and where would the water go?  No planning application should make flooding worse. The question of why the railings would increase flooding risk was also raised.
• A member felt there was not enough information on the flooding issue and would not want to agree to something and there be flooding issues as a result.
• Noted that the Heritage and Conservation people think this acceptable.  The railings would make the area look better, the problem was the original building that was not attractive.
• A member queried that if railings on Oriel Terrace and Vittoria Walk were approved, and the railings in Wolseley Terrace not included in the application, could they put up a 1m wall without planning permission?
• A member queried whether there was sufficient justification for 1.2 m fence to be built within close proximity to Wolseley Terrace and whether this would prevent people climbing over anyway.  Could end up with a fence that was no good and have no impact on the terrace.
• BT have given no justification for anti-social  behaviour issues, the Police have not reported anything and once out of lockdown people may disperse and go further afield which they cannot at moment.

Chair stated there was a clear view from the committee that they were not happy with the situation and that he was also disappointed that BT had not communicated with the residents of Wolseley Terrace which was one of the reasons why it was deferred last time as it would have been an opportunity to talk to each other and come to an arrangement to satisfy everyone and that had not happened. This was a community and neighbourhood issue over which the committee had limited control but there were certain issues that had been raised by members on this and the Chair also had some concerns.

The Planning Officer referred to the couple of questions asked.  

• Regarding the flooding he reiterated that as it was such minor development it fell within Government advice as unlikely to cause an increase risk in flooding.
• Regarding height of wall, BT could still incorporate a 1m high fence of any type on top of the wall regardless without planning permission.

 Members expressed deep concern about this as they would then have no say and could end up with something worse. 

An alternative solution would be to move the railings further away from Wolseley Terrace.  The application fell short of the best interests of the town and it was proposed to refuse on grounds of failure to deal with paragraph 194 of NPPF.

There was consensus from the members on the railings on Vittoria Walk and Oriel Road, but concern about the railings facing Wolseley Terrace and even more concern that BT could put up anything up to 1m under permitted development rights.

The Head of Planning could see members’ reluctance to refuse but could also understand the unhappiness with the proposal.  He therefore proposed to defer again and put members’ views to BT and if they did not move then to refuse.  By clearly putting to BT what members found acceptable or not, may give the response members would accept.

It was suggested requesting a representative from BT to attend the next hearing.

There being no further comments and on the advice of the Legal Officer, the Chair moved to vote for a deferral in the first instance.  If this was not passed, a vote for refusal would follow.

Vote to defer:

For : 8

Against : 3

Abstain : 0

DEFFERRED