Agenda item

MJC introduced the application, telling Members that it was at committee at Cllr Sudbury’s request, due to concerns about the suitability of this site for housing, and the relationship of the proposed flats to neighbouring properties.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

BD:  asked about the building which seems to have sprung up on the site – Members saw this on Planning View – and asked whether it would be removed.  Also wanted to hear what would be happening about the trees on the site.

MJC, in response:

-          said the building seen on the site visit is apparently the bin store for the proposed flats, though was surprised to see it and did not know why it had been built as there has been no planning application for it.  Officers will investigate.

CChavasse, in response:

-          told Members that when the application first came in, the trees officer had looked at it and noticed there were trees at the end of the garden which would screen the proposed development nicely.  However, if the development goes ahead as planned, the trees could become a nuisance and there could be a high hedge issue with the owner required to remove them.  Trees officers have thought about TPO-ing the trees, but as they do not contribute to amenity, this would be thin ice in an appeal situation.  Had therefore gone back to the developer and re-configured the plans to make it more acceptable for adjacent properties, with reduced shade on the main living area, and leaf guards on the guttering to ensure that needle drop isn’t a problem.  Considers that the trees and the development can co-exist quite nicely.

GB:  remains concerned about the possible impact that the new building might have on the rooting system of the trees.  These are important trees – the only green in the EagleTower complex – and it is essential that their integrity is maintained.  Not convinced that this development is altogether suitable, but realises that it is a brownfield site and that housing is needed. 

PT:  is puzzled by the lay-out – the proposal is for five units yet there appear to be six. 

RG:  in addition to a policy against garden grabbing, thinks that there should be one against car park grabbing.  Realises the proposal will add to the housing stock, but is worried that this is a commercial site, and the residents of the Edwardian house are used to peace and quiet, and no traffic movements – which won’t be the case with this scheme.  Is also concerned that space in the EagleTower car park will also be constrained – knows he will be told that this isn’t a policy matter, but still considers it a pity.

AC:  following on from these comments, Eagle Tower provides serviced offices for a lot of small companies.  Employees already find it hard to park and use the road outside the site.  This scheme will make the situation worse, which is a concern.

BD:  added that the Eagle Tower building isn’t currently full – fewer car park spaces may jeopardise the renting of the rest of the building.

MJC, in response:

-          to RG, regarding the policy position - he answered his own question, and whoever buys the apartments will be aware of their context. Regarding additional traffic movements, the Eagle Tower annexe has already been developed, and residents of the new properties will use the same entrance/exit to Montpellier Parade – it already serves 13 dwellings, and will serve an additional five;

-          regarding car parking on the Eagle Tower site, the new dwellings are proposed for the side not used by the site, and five car parking spaces are to be provided for five dwellings, which is considered acceptable.  There have been no objections from the Tower, neighbours have been made aware of the proposal, and there are no objections from Highways.  The site caters for its own needs, and isn’t currently used for car parking.

CH:  on a point of precedent:  if permission is given for offices with car parking, and then several years down the line the car parking spaces aren’t needed any more and the site is built on, the question must be asked whether the permission would have been granted in the first place.  Anxious about RG’s point, and a decision based on the amount of car parking space at the time.  A lot of Eagle Tower is currently empty – if it fills up, the bottom two floors may end up being used as a multi-storey car park.

AC:  questions the allocation of one parking space per flat – what about the residents’ friends and visitors?

MJC, in response:

-          to CH, there is no such thing as precedent in determining planning applications, and if further applications are submitted down the line, they will be considered on their own merits at the time; cannot therefore be too concerned about what may happen in the future;

-          regarding car parking provision, there is currently no minimum car parking standard, but this is a town centre site where it’s not uncommon to see properties with no parking at all.  Five spaces is considered a suitable number, and there have been no objections from Highways – if this was considered to be under-provision, they would have said so. 

GB:  asked for confirmation that the trees won’t be disturbed by the building process.

CChavasse, in response:

-          the trees are immature enough for their rooting area not to be disturbed by the development.  They have the potential to grow bigger, and there shouldn’t be any foundation disturbance provided the trees roots are taken account of during the foundation design.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT