Agenda item

The planning application was for 6 one-bedroom flats at 1 Grove Street, Woodston, with associated parking and amenity space.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update sheet.

Councillor Faustino, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The current use of the site was industrial and residential was considered to be preferable to this.

·         From an historical point of view the surrounding area of the Fletton Towers was better suited to residential development.

·         At the current time the design of the site had windows facing the neighbouring properties. The proposal did not have any windows on that side, so would allow residents greater privacy.

·         It was not considered that overshadowing would be an issue, as the location of the site allowed for a good amount of sunlight.

·         Two of the flats outlined would be set aside for disabled residents and single bedroom flats would not attract families. This was considered to be a good feature for the residential amenity of the area.

Councillor Thacker and Peter Slinger, Architect, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant had retired and wished to convert his business buildings into residential dwellings.

·         Previously a high number of vehicles had utilised the site, this would be reduced within the proposals.

·         The applicant had taken into consideration officer comments and had reduced the development from its 7 x 2 bedroom flat design.

·         There was sufficient space on the site for parking, refuse and gardens.

·         No objections had been received from residents, and response had been positive.

·         It was not considered sensible that the current building was acceptable in terms of amenity, while the proposed dwellings would not be so.

·         The specific design of the development was a topic for a reserved matters application.

The Committee noted that there was potential for overdevelopment on the site, however considered that the proposal was reasonable in size and more appropriate than the current building.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern that the two storey nature of part of the proposal would have an impact on neighbouring residence’s outlooks.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, and the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to attached appropriate conditions. This was because the proposal was not considered to impact residential amenity and did not constitute overdevelopment. The motion was carried seven voting in favour, one voting against.

RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour and one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED and the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to attach appropriate conditions.

Reasons for the decision

The Committee did not believe that the development proposal would have a negative impact on residential amenity and it was not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.