Agenda item

Proposal:       Change of use of Office (Use Class B1) to 6 residential flats (Use Class C3) with parking and associated external changes to facilitate the change of use, including the two storey extension previously approved under Planning Permission APP/18/00449.

 

Additional Information

 

 (The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

 

Proposal:       Change of use of Office (Use Class B1) to 6 residential flats (Use Class C3) with parking and associated external changes to facilitate the change of use, including the two storey extension previously approved under Planning Permission APP/18/00449.

 

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to refuse permission

 

The Committee received the supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting which:

 

(1)         included written deputations submitted by Ms Brooks, Mrs Buckley, Mr Allsop, and County Councillor Fairhurst;

 

(2)         detailed an update to the planning considerations;

 

(3)         summarised additional representations and comments received since the report was published; and

 

(4)          provided additional information requested by the Site Viewing Working Party

 

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

 

(a)          Mr Allsop, who on behalf of the applicant, read out his written deputation supporting the application; and

 

(b)          County Councillor Fairhurst, who supported Mr Allsop’s comments and further supported the application for the following reasons:

 

              (1)         the Council had permitted similar development nearby in closer proximity to the railway line than this proposal;

 

              (2)         the development was situated on a residential street and set further back from the road than the adjoining residential properties. Therefore, it was difficult to justify refusal on grounds of the impact of noise and vibration;

 

              (3)         the applicants proposed to move to another site within the Borough. Therefore, there would not be a loss of business floorspace or employment within the Borough;

 

              (4)         the development would help meet the demand for flats for younger people in the Borough;

 

              (5)         the site was within a sustainable location with train and bus services nearby; and

 

              (6)         this was an opportunity to provide accommodation without impacting on greenfield sites.

 

The officers made the following comments, in response to the deputations received:

 

·                         The building was designed for modern office use and in active use. Therefore, it was difficult to justify a change of use of the building to residential on the grounds that the building was no longer fit for its current use

·                         Policy CS2 sought to safeguard sites of business uses

·                         It was difficult to quantify the impact of Covid 19 on start-up businesses in the long term. However, it was anticipated that there always be a demand for such premises for small start-up businesses.

·                         Previous appeals, set out in report, were material considerations when considering this application

·                         The Committee was required to consider the application on its own merits. The other developments referred to in the verbal deputations were either built before the Council adopted its space standards, had different designs or were subject to less sources of noise.

·                         It was not known when the current uses would relocate

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, officers advised that:

 

·                         Although. the room sizes were small they met the national space standards

 

·                         All forms of housing, particularly two bed dwellings, were required for the Borough. However, such housing needed to be of a good quality.

 

·                         The applicant’s plans to market the flats were not a material planning consideration.

 

·                         The applicant was looking to install a stronger form of noise attention measures on the elevation of the development facing the railway line.

 

·                         The Environmental Health Officer had advised that there was no longer any vibration issue.

 

·                         There was an acceptable level of noise within the building provided the windows were closed.

 

·                         Due to the sustainability of the location, the parking provision was considered acceptable.

 

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.

 

A majority of the Committee were minded to grant full permission, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

(i)           the principle for this development had been established;

 

(ii)          there was a shortage of housing supply in the Borough with a high particularly high demand for 1 and 2 bed properties;

 

(iii)         the impact on the character and appearance of the area and neighbouring properties had been addressed as the appearance would not change;

 

(iv)         the impact of residential amenity noise and vibration has been mitigated by the applicant and supported by officers;

 

(v)          the loss of business space would be minimal compared with the excess of business space in the Borough demonstrated by the applicant;

 

(vi)         the ecological issues could be addressed by a Section 106 Agreement; and

 

(vii)        the other issues could be mitigated by conditions

 

RESOLVED that

 

(A)         application APP/20/00875 be granted permission subject to a legal agreement to address the ecological issues and such conditions (where considered appropriate) to cover:

 

·                         Time limit for commencement of the development

 

·                         Materials and finishes

 

·                         The obscure glazing and fixed shut windows requirements

 

·                         A compliance condition ensuring that the proposal is in accordance with the submitted noise report

 

·                         A requirement that the noise conditions are complied with prior to occupation

 

(B)         authority be delegated authority to the Head of Planning, after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, to determine the terms of the legal agreement and the conditions referred to in (A) above;

 

 

·                         The provision of the parking provision details

 

·                         The provision of the electric vehicle charging point mentioned in the deputations

 

·                         The provision of details of the cycle storage and design

 

·                         Lighting

 

·                         The improvement of the fencing to the railway line

 

·                         The issues raised by the water authority relating to the impact on the Aquifer

 

·                         Landscaping

 

 

(Voting for the resolution was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Crellin, Patrick, Branson, Patel, Hughes

Against: 0

Abstentions:0)