Agenda item

MJC told Members that this application will build on work which has already taken place in St Paul’s at Hudson and Manser Streets and Crabtree Place, where the frontages were remodelled, with bay windows and porches added.  This proposal will continue in the same vane, to the junction with St Paul’s Road.  The officer recommendation is for approval, and the application is at Committee because the land is owned by the council.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PT:  has a quick question – the condition on the blue update seems to say that the houses will have to have open-plan fronts – is that right?  The new houses in the area have railings and bins outside the front, which look horrible. 

KS:  will the next phase of this work be at Margaret Road?  Why has it not been included?

HM:   The scheme includes 18 concrete balls which are totally the wrong idea.  The original application had planters; there were objections to these, due to the amount of maintenance required, and it was suggested these be replaced with groups of trees to soften the landscape.  Concrete balls have the opposite effect, and will invite graffiti.

PB:  used to represent this area 20 years ago, and AM has also been its councillor, so welcomes the significant improvements now being implemented.  If trees are introduced, these should be semi-mature specimens – young saplings will struggle.  Would also like to know if the hardstanding is permeable?

BF:  agrees with PB that this is a great improvement to St Paul’s as part of its regeneration scheme.  To HM, pointed out that the concrete balls have a rough surface which will not be suitable for graffiti, but agrees that semi-mature trees would be a good idea if they could be introduced.  This proposal will be a great improvement to St Paul’s – it is good to see it coming to fruition. 

AM:  as mentioned by PB, has knowledge of this area, and welcomes the proposal which will be a big improvement.  Suggests semi-mature trees would improve the arboreal attrition rate. 

MJC, in response:

-          to PT, explained that the condition is not suggesting an open-plan layout, but trying to prevent incremental changes to the scene, and ensure that the integrity of the proposal is not diluted with the addition of trellises, walls being replaced with railings etc, which would undo the good work the scheme seeks to achieve;

-          to KS, doesn’t know when or whether this scheme will extend to Margaret Road – that would be the logic, but that is up  to CBH;

-          to HM, the landscape architect certainly considered that groups of trees would be preferable, but trees and planters require maintenance, and trees in pavements can cause problems.  The Highways Department would not support that option, hence the introduction of the balls;

-          the concept of this scheme is to build a high-quality gateway, and although planting would be the preferred option, the County Council would remain resistant to this;

-          the condition talks about understanding the size of the trees being planted; semi-mature trees cost a lot of money.  Trees being used here would be comparable to Hudson and Manser Streets – not whips, but semi-mature, enough to have immediate impact.  Beyond this is not necessary and wouldn’t be imposed elsewhere.  The cost would have an impact – the trees used on the ASDA site cost £20,000 each.

BF:  has spoken to the County Council about trees in his ward and asked to use Highways local money to pay for their care and maintenance after new ones have been planted.  Will use this scheme as a test case to see how it progresses. 

PT:  is in a similar position in her ward.  Why can’t the County Council allow CBC to include trees in this development?  It is discriminatory – trees are put into private developments, but are needed even more in schemes such as this one.

MJC, in response:

-          officers welcome the fact that trees are being proposed at all – the development should be commended for this.  Feels we are getting bogged down on the tree issue, and should not lose sight of the overall improvement of the area;

-          the County Council can influence what does or doesn’t go into the scheme as it owns and maintains the road and will be required to maintain any trees or planting.  In view of local government budget issues, it is not surprising that they want to keep their maintenance budget as low as possible;

-          Members should remember that this scheme will be a significant improvement to the area, building on the award-winning work in Hudson and Manser Streets. 

RH:  asked how many trees are to be planted? 

MJC, in response:

-          confirmed that there will be five street trees.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT