Demolition of existing car showroom premises and erection of 12 one bedroom and 9 two bedroom residential apartments.

Demolition of existing car showroom premises and erection of 12 one bedroom and 9 two bedroom residential apartments.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             Comments had been received from the Environmental Health Officer and, consequently, an additional condition was recommended to require a contamination survey of the site to be undertaken.

§             Further comments had been received from Traffic Manager which clarified that the proposed development would generate less vehicle movements than the current permitted use for car sales and servicing.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, expressed some concerns about the loss of employment land but supported the scheme as he felt that the design would enhance the street scene and welcomed the affordable housing element.  He asked that the contribution of £25,300 ‘towards the cost of new or enhancement of existing open space, play, sport and recreation facilities’ be earmarked to the nearest play areas.  He noted that many people in the ward did not have access to a car and welcomed the proposed cycle parking provision.

 

In response to comments made by Councillor GFM Dawe about the potential health risks associated with former garage sites, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the contamination survey required by the Environmental Health Officer would involve a review of historic uses, site sampling and monitoring.

 

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes expressed a number of concerns, including: the level of density would be overbearing in the area and that there should be fewer units with only one bedroom; given the cumulative impact of numerous planning permissions granted in the vicinity of the site and along Ledbury Road, she felt that there were significant highway safety risks associated with this proposal; she disagreed that the predominant land use in the area was residential and commented that employment land should not be lost and the existing mixture of uses should be preserved; she felt that the traffic movements to and from the site would conflict with the safe operation of the Fire Station; the Section 106 Agreement was criticised for not being specific about where the contributions would be spent; she outlined the recent history of traffic accidents in the area and felt that this had not been given due weight.  Given these considerations, Councillor Lloyd-Hayes felt that the application should be refused.

 

Councillor WJ Walling felt that the existing site was an eyesore and the proposed development would enhance the area, although he did feel that there should be more family orientated accommodation and that there should be further discussions with the Fire Service about the access arrangements.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox commented that there was a plethora of single occupancy dwellings being constructed and felt that units with additional bedrooms should be included in such schemes.  He felt that the current proposal was too intensive and the loss of employment land would be regrettable.  However, if planning permission was granted, he suggested an additional condition to include a covered parking provision for mobility scooters/vehicles; he added that such provision should be considered as part of future schemes in the City Centre.

 

Councillor AT Oliver opposed the application on the basis of the loss of employment land and felt that a mixed business/residential development would be better suited to the site.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards commented that a mixed-use development would be preferable but, noting that Members had to consider the application before them, supported the application.

 

A number of Members noted the demand for affordable and centrally located accommodation, that the Traffic Manager considered that the proposed development would generate less vehicle movements than the existing use, that there did not appear to be any direct links between collisions in the area and this application site, and redevelopment for residential use was preferable to the site standing empty.

 

In response to concerns expressed about the density of the development, Councillor Hubbard commented on the need to make the most efficient use of previously developed land, particularly in the City Centre.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a mixed-use scheme had been considered but local agents had confirmed that there was little or no demand for retail or office space in this area.  He also advised that the Traffic Manager supported the proposed scheme, even if the there was potentially an increase in vehicular movements but this was not anticipated given the permitted use as a car sales garage and servicing centre.

 

A motion to refuse the application was lost and the resolution below was then agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)      The Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report and any additional matters and terms that he considers appropriate.

 

2)      On completion of the aforementioned planning obligation the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers.

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.      B02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

 

         Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building.

 

3.      D01 (Site investigation - archaeology).

 

         Reason: To ensure the archaeological interest of the site is recorded.

 

4.      E02 (Restriction on hours of working).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

 

5.      F01 (Scheme of noise attenuating measures).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

 

6.      W01 (Foul/surface water drainage).

 

         Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

 

7.      W02 (No surface water to connect to public system).

 

         Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

 

8.      W03 (No drainage run-off to public system).

 

         Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

 

9.      Non Standard (Contamination condition).

 

10.    E17 (No windows in side elevation).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

 

11.    F48 (Details of slab levels).

 

         Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

 

12.    F39 (Scheme of refuse storage).

 

         Reason: In the interests of amenity.

 

13.    H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

 

14.    H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision).

 

         Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure covered cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy.

 

15.    G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

16.    G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

17.    G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

 

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

 

18.    No development including demolition shall take place until a site Waste Management Plan has been implemented in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: In the interests of pollution prevention and waste minimisation and management.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

 

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.