Agenda item

MJC introduced the application by describing the proposal as above and the demolition work to be undertaken.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Garnham.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

SW:  generally happy with the application, but for clarity, what is the difference between the footprint of the existing and the proposed buildings?   Also, what is the relative density of the proposal?

BF:  the NPPF Paragraph 7 states that the planning system should protect and enhance the built environment, but this application does neither.  What is proposed is a new building, and a larger footprint.  Also, for clarification:  the ‘retirement’ apartments are intended for people aged 65 or over, but with the retirement age increasing to 67, it is quite possible that some of the future residents will still be working for a living.

GB:  on planning view, asked about the balconies and neighbours’ concerns about being overlooked – has this been resolved?  The two wings of the building are in close proximity to Lypiatt Mews.

AC:  would like to hear more from the Conservation Officer as to why the front building can be so radically changed inside.  Also concerned about the amount of parking, which is totally inadequate.

MS:  would like an explanation about what has happened to the lift shafts.  Regarding the footprint, considers that there will be very little difference between the existing and the proposed buildings, as the proposed wings at the back are narrower than what is there now.  Agrees with AC that parking is a concern – the residents will be people of an age who will happily drive the Devon and back, for example, so there will be a lot of cars to park, and most of the parking spaces are at the front of the building.  Does not have any suggested refusal reasons, but is worried about these items. 

HM:  it is unfortunate that the Highways Officer isn’t present to answer concerns about parking arrangements.  Pleased to see this significant site being brought back to full use, but there are a few businesses still operating in the listed building, in a similar situation to the businesses on the Leckhampton Trading Estate in a previous application.  There was a CBC initiative to help those businesses relocate – would like to see the same thing here.  Also notes that neighbours have objected to the outdoor lighting scheme, and asks if there are any details here.

LG:  we have many fine old listed buildings in the town, some better than others, and it would be a shame if the external structures were to be altered in any way – these are special, and there are policies in place to protect them from external alteration, although previous governments have allowed for internal alterations.  Reading the representations and objections from neighbours, it seems that usual standards of looking after listed buildings have not been met.  There have been many appeals where listed buildings are involved, and in almost every case, the Inspector has said that external alterations are not acceptable and dismissed the appeals.  On this basis, can see no reason to vote in support of this application. 

PT:  regarding the footprint issue, can Officers point out on the drawings the differences between the two buildings – this is quite difficult to see.

BF:  was the Highways Officer invited to the meeting tonight?  There was a problem last month when he was not in attendance, but told BF that he was not invited to attend – why not?

MJC, in response:

-          to SW regarding differences in footprint, does not have the actual square meterage of the existing and the proposed to hand, but it was clear on site that there are strong similarities between the two regarding width and depth;

-          regarding density, this is not a calculation we would do for a development of this nature, although density calculations are sometimes relevant on residential schemes.  However, it is clear that the listed building continues to be set in a suitable space and the site is not cramped – officers are happy with this;

-          to BF’s suggestion that the proposal doesn’t enhance the conservation area, officers do not agree with this.  The existing office building has no merit, and the applicant worked through the proposal in detail with Karen Radford and Wendy Hopkins to ensure a quality building would be delivered.  The architecture has been refined and lifted, and officers are happy – hence the recommendation to approve.  If they considered it to be harmful, the recommendation would be different;

-          to GB’s question about the balconies, this has been resolved to officer satisfaction – apologies that this has not been included in the update.  Revised drawings were received this morning, showing that the balconies of concern on the south side have been removed.  On the west-projecting spur, privacy screens have been suggested by the applicant, to protect the amenity of residents of Glenowen House, compliant with policy requirements;

-          to AC’s concerns about parking arrangements, 27 spaces are proposed for the 52 apartments, and the Highways Officer’s comments are detailed in the report.  His analysis suggests that at any one point, not more than 13 vehicles will be parked on the site.  Members may agree or not, but this is the opinion of experts at County Council;

-          to put this is perspective, Jenner Court in St George’s Road is a similar development to this – a similar use, with a 90-bed care home and 67 apartments with 42 parking spaces.  This is working satisfactorily and there have been no concerns – in fact, there are often empty spaces.  This is not a parking-hungry proposal and, crucially, the County Council has no objections to the scheme.  Even if parking was to prove inadequate, the locality lends itself to ad hoc parking on Lypiatt Road and Lypiatt Terrace;

-          to BF’s question about whether or not the Highways Officer was invited to attend the meeting, the County Council has an open invitation to attend Planning Committee, which they do not always choose to take up – it is decided on a month-by-month basis, depending on the issues.  The Highways Officer gives his opinion and is happy to stand by it, and doesn’t see other consultees attending regularly.  There are resource issues at the County Council and, covering a wide area, staff have many calls on their time, but Members can be assured that there is always an open invitation to Highways Officers to attend Planning Committee;

-          to MS’s concern about the lift shaft, the original drawings showed an overrun of 1.1 above the top floor, giving rise to concerns about the view from Lansdown Road, but the applicant has since looked at this again and reduced in to 450mm, with a long view of just 250mm, giving the appearance of being part and parcel of the roof.   Officers would prefer it if this was not necessary but given that it is needed for the lift and the type of accommodation being provided, they are happy that the applicants have done all they can to mitigate, and can tolerate what has been proposed;

-          to HM’s concern about the businesses operating from the listed building, Policy EM2 gives exemption to buildings which were originally constructed for residential purposes, which this clearly was.  It is therefore not covered by that policy.  It is in the gift of individual Members, but not of the Planning Committee as a whole, to lobby throughout the Council for help with relocation for the resident businesses;

-          regarding the outdoor lighting scheme, an additional condition can be added to cover this – it is fair comment, and will give some degree of control;

-          to LG, the front of the listed building will not be altered, other than the windows.  Internally there will be changes but these are primarily supported, and officers are confident that the listed building is being treated in a favourable way.

KR, in response:

-          to BF’s concern that the setting of the listed building and the conservation area will not be enhanced by the proposal, we are considering two separate issues here:  the listed building and the conservation area.  There is case law here which states that as long as the building or setting is being preserved and not harmed, it does not actually have to be enhanced;

-          regarding the preservation of the conservation area, officers consider the setting of the listed building will be improved by the proposal, with less tarmac, more green space, and more landscaping around it.  The long swathe of car parking on the right will be removed and there will be more trees.  Unfortunately, a beautiful tree in the centre of the site was recently blown down, but the proposed trees and landscaping will compensate for this;

-          regarding the listed building, and the question whether the proposal enhances it character, we need to ask what that character actually is.  Changes to the building itself – walls, doors, windows - will be kept to a minimum.  The plan form shows that the relationship of internal spaces are those of a large, grand house, which was subsequently extended and used as office space.  We have to be realistic – this building will never be used as a house again – and the distinct advantage of what is being proposed here is that the ground floor is to be kept as a series of open rooms – entrance hall, dining room, library etc;

-          original windows have been removed in the past and replaced with new timber ones, and an ugly fire escape has already been removed;  there has been more sub-division of the original villa in the basement;

-          looking carefully at all this, officers do not feel that the plan form is compromised by the application.  As this building will never be returned to one house, there are distinct advantages in what is proposed.

MJC, in response:

-          Condition 3 on Page 5 of the blue update refers to the detailed design of windows and the submission of materials and finishes prior to commencement of work.  This should also include internal doors, architraves and rainwater goods, and these will be added to the condition.

PT:  on planning view, Members noted that the trees on the plan were not shown where they should be.  Has this been resolved?

LG:  in deciding how to vote, relies on what he hears from Members and Officers in the room – this is the importance of these debates – as well as what he reads in the documents.  Has listened to KR’s comments and is more convinced now that the proposal is acceptable.  Remains concerned about the height of the proposed building, and also the objection from neighbours who feel their privacy will be destroyed.  Has this been addressed?

MJC, in response:

-          to PT, the application was supported by a full tree survey, and a few trees were not considered worthy of retention.  A lot of new trees are to be planted and there will be a lot more soft landscaping on site.

-          to LG, regarding the height of the new building and the impact on neighbours, the main block will be 400mm higher than what is there at the moment.  Additional storeys are set well into the site on all sites and will not have any impact on neighbours;

-          on the issue of privacy, officers and the applicants have looked long and hard at this, taken neighbours’ concerns regarding balconies etc into account, and done all they can to reduce the impact.  This is a big building, and officers feel that neighbouring amenity has been safeguarded to an adequate amount.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with an additional condition to cover the outdoor lighting scheme on the planning permission and amendment to condition 3 on the listed building consent

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT