Agenda item - BH2013/01278 - Former Infinity Foods Site 45 Franklin Road & 67 67a & 67b Norway Street - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three-storey commercial building (class B1 office space) and two and three storey buildings to form 31no dwellings with associated car parking, access and landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three-storey commercial building (class B1 office space) and two and three storey buildings to form 31no dwellings with associated car parking, access and landscaping works.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Case Officer, Jason Hawkes, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. Attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List and some minor typographical and other amendments were noted in relation to Conditions 21, 25 and 34 and Informative 9; an additional condition was also added in relation to the reinstatement of the redundant crossover. The application site related to the former Infinity Foods site and consisted of three large buildings which were all now vacant since the relocation of the two businesses that had operated there. The site backed onto the rear gardens of the existing properties; and Vale Park was also opposite the site; it was noted that a small rear alleyway would also be retained as part of the scheme. Permission was sought for the demolition of all the existing buildings and the construction of 31 residential dwellings and a commercial building in B1 office use. The residential units were a mix of two and three storey houses and buildings containing flats, and the commercial building would be located to the northwest of the site. The existing access would be retained from Norway Street and a new access made from Franklin Road; however, there would be no direct vehicular access through the site. The parking for the properties would be directly in front of the houses and this would give the development a ‘mews style’ appearance. The proposed material was buff sand coloured brick; with gable ends and banded detailing, and there would also be some undercroft parking. The commercial building would be of a more modern design, and the space inside had not been subdivided to allow for flexible use as the demand dictated.

(3)                   There would be seven affordable housing units on the site; 5 of these would be two bedroom flats and the others would be the adjacent 2 three bedrooms family homes with gardens. The application had been the subject of consultation, and there had been eight letters of objection to the scheme; some of these related to the loss of the employment space. It was explained that in the Local Plan the site was designated for industrial and business use; however, the emerging City Plan designated this site for a mixed use scheme; whilst the scale of employment space would be reduced the proposed B1 use would give higher density of employment and potentially provide up to 61 jobs – an increase from 58 with the previous use. Some of the problems in relation to the site in its current employment configuration were the access and the close proximity of residential units; the site had also been marketed for an adequate amount of time with no interest. The scheme was in accordance with the emerging City Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It was noted that the provision of affordable housing was below the 40% threshold, but the applicant had submitted a viability report; this had been assessed by the District Valuer who found it to be acceptable. Partly due to the need to deliver the scheme the applicant had agreed to an additional affordable unit on the site; increasing the provision to 22%; the level of affordable housing could also be revisited if the scheme had not reached an agreed stage of completion in the three years follow an approval. In relation to amenity all the units were set back and it was felt there would be no significant harm in relation to neighbouring amenity. The provision of parking was also acceptable, and the travel plan had been assessed and it was not felt it would create unacceptable demand in the area. All the proposed residential units would meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 and the commercial building would be BREEAM ‘excellent’. The application was recommendation to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr Scott Bartha spoke in opposition to the application in his capacity as a local resident, and explained he was speaking on behalf of other local residents. He stated that residents had little objection to the concept of the scheme, but had particular concerns in relation to the close proximity of the proposed flats to another higher density building adjacent to the site in Franklin Road. It was felt the proposed flats could be moved elsewhere on the site which would be more sympathetic with regard to that area of the site as any smaller houses there would not be objected to.

(5)                   The Deputy Development Control Manager noted that Members had to consider the scheme before then, any material change would constitute a new application.

(6)                   In response to a query from Councillor Carol Theobald it was confirmed by Mr Bartha where he lived in relation to the site.

(7)                   Mr Steven Brown spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the application was recommended for approval, and there had been no objection other than the now withdrawn objection in relation to affordable housing. The application had also been the subject of an extensive pre-application process; during this time the application had evolved and included major changes as part of the pre-application process. The proposals included a high quality design that respected the area and made efficient use of the land; as well as being highly sustainable and meeting lifetime homes standards. The application would provide much needed housing in the city with sufficient parking, and would secure £150k of infrastructure improvement. The scheme also focused on providing family homes with private amenity space. In closing Mr Brown asked the Committee to approve the application.

(8)                   Councillor Robins asked about the provision of affordable housing, and in response Mr Brown confirmed that the Housing Team had accepted the position of the District Valuer. The Deputy Development Control Manager confirmed that the Housing Team now found the level of affordable housing proposed in the scheme to be acceptable.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   In was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that the distance between the buildings referenced by Mr Bartha was 2.4 metres; however, it was also noted that there would be no windows on this elevation. It was also confirmed for Councillor Shanks that the gardens were between 7 & 10.5 metres in length.

(10)               Councillor Gilbey asked what the s106 monies would be used for, and in response the Case Officer explained the head of terms were outlined in the report and detailed highways infrastructure improvements; open space and educational improvements. In relation to educational improvements it was noted that the money would go into a fund to used to provide educational provision as close to the site as possible.

(11)               Councillor Gilbey went on to ask about the new access to the site, and how this would work in terms of right of way between cars and pedestrians. In response the Principal Transport Officer, Peter Tolson, explained that the layout was designed to reduce travelling speeds; there would not be priorities, but users would behave accordingly.

(12)               Councillor Carden asked about the funding used for allotments, and it was confirmed the proposed site would be one nearby which was owned by the local authority.

(13)               It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the proposed consent was for 2 years to encourage the scheme to come forward.

(14)               It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the site had been investigated and appropriate conditions attached to address concerns in relation to contamination and sinkage.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)               Councillor Cox stated that he felt this was an excellent scheme; a clever use of the site, and was providing employment space. He added that the houses were appropriate and hoped this would continue to add to the rejuvenation of the local area. The site was close the local transport links, and was suitable for families; he congratulated those behind it.

(16)               Councillor Carol Theobald added that the scheme was very good, and it looked attractive.

(17)               Councillor Hyde noted that she welcomed development with parking, and that had detail such as brickwork and hung tiles. She went on to add that it was good sustainable development, and even the apartment units were in keeping with the wider scheme.

(18)               Councillor Littman stated he was largely of the view it was an excellent scheme; he had concern with the level of affordable housing, but was willing to accept the position of the District Valuer.

(19)               Councillor Robins stated that he was broadly in favour of the scheme, but did have some reservations in relation to office space on the site which he felt was a slight afterthought. He went on to add that there was vacant office space in close proximity to the site; he also stated that it was a disappointment there was no through vehicular access at the whole site, and noted existing traffic problems on Norway Street.

(20)               Councillor Wells noted that he was pleased to see family homes being built, but he also had some concern with the provision of the office space, and he was not sure if there was a need for office space in this location. He stated he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(21)               Councillor Gilbey stated that she was broadly in favour of the scheme; whilst she appreciated the necessity to provide employment space on the site she noted the close proximity of other vacant office buildings.

(22)               A vote was taken and planning permission was unanimously granted.

80.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolved to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in the report and the agreement of a s106 agreement.