Agenda item

Erection of 2no. dwellings and garage block with 1no. residential flat following demolition of existing buildings. [Guildhall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs Plowman for the erection of 2no. dwellings and garage block with 1no. residential flat following demolition of existing buildings.

Officers suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application that a number of conditions be attached to permission, such as;

·        That details of railings be agreed.

·        That trees be protected during construction works.

·        That surfacing for car and cycle parking be laid out before occupation.

It was noted that comments had not been received from Guildhall Planning Panel. A model of the development was provided by the applicant and appeared at the bottom of the table for Members to view.

Officers informed Members that;

·        The eaves level of the development would be lower than what was currently on the site.

·        The buildings would be lower than the city walls.

·        The main living rooms of the two storey dwellings would on the top floor and would have access outside and bedrooms located on the ground floor.

Representations in support were received from the applicant, Mr Tony Plowman. He commented that he was in attendance to answer questions that Members might have had.

Questions from Members included;

·        As the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit felt there were difficulties, would noise from the vicinity affect the use of the garden space.

·        Why were the two roofs on the two storey building and garage block designed to have contradictory bowed roofs.

·        Had other design options other than that of a contemporary design, been considered.

·        If the bricks used in construction would be recycled or new.

·        What would be the energy rating for the development.

The applicant reported that;

·        In relation to noise affecting the use of the garden space, 80% of the site would be landscaped to avoid this.

·        There were two bowed roofs because the development dropped down from a two storey building to a one storey building. The levels of the eaves would be at the same height.

·        Regarding design, a blend of contemporary and traditional styles were considered between the applicant, the Council and English Heritage. Comments had also been received from the Civic Trust.

·        Recycled bricks could be used in the construction, but there was a quality control issue with this and the applicant felt it was felt that new bricks would be better.

·        In regards to the energy rating that the buildings would have, windows could be inserted at a deeper level to allow for a great level of insulation.

Councillor Watson who had called in the application raised concerns about the application, including that he felt the development would detract from the views of the Minster.

During discussion some points were raised by Members were;

·        That although the development might detract from some views of the Minster, the existing view of the site was unattractive.

·        That although the design of the buildings proposed were modern, it did not appear to be too oppressive.

·        That although this would give Lord Mayors Walk a mixture of building styles, other streets in the city centre included a similar mix of styles.

·        That some felt it was the wrong scheme, in the wrong place and that the plans should be withdrawn.

·        That the views from the walls towards the site should be taken into consideration, not just the views towards the Minster from the site.

·        That although it was disappointing that no comments had been received from Guildhall Planning Panel, English Heritage had offered their support.

·        Although the site would be lost as a business space, the area would be enhanced by the green space provided by the development.

Councillor Warters requested that his vote against approval be recorded. Councillor Watson also requested that his vote against approval be recorded.

Resolved: That the application be approved with the following additional condition;

17.   Tree Protection

Trees shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be protected in accordance with BS: 5837. Trees in relation to construction (and as recommended in section 6 of the JCA Arboricultural Report 11298/SR).

Before the commencement of development, including demolition, building operations, or the importing of materials and any excavations, a method statement regarding protection measures for the existing trees shown to be retained on the approved drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This statement shall include details

and locations of protective fencing; phasing of works; site access for demolition/construction and methodology; type of construction

machinery/vehicles to be used (including delivery and collection lorries and arrangements for loading/off-loading); parking arrangements for site vehicles; locations for storage of materials; locations of utilities. Details of existing and proposed levels and surfaces shall also be included. The protective fencing line shall be adhered to at all times during development to create exclusion zones. None of the following activities shall take place

within the exclusion zones: excavation, raising of levels, storage of any materials or top soil, lighting of fires, mechanical cultivation or deep-digging, parking or manoeuvring of vehicles; there shall be no site huts, no mixing of cement, no disposing of washings, no stored fuel, no new trenches, or pipe runs for services or drains. The fencing shall remain secured in position throughout the construction process including the implementation of landscape

works. A notice stating 'tree protection zone - do not remove' shall be attached to each section of fencing.

Reason:   To ensure protection of existing trees during development which make a significant contribution to the amenity of the conservation area.

Reason:   Members felt that as the scheme was well considered and proposed high quality materials, the conservation area would be enhanced and there would be no undue effect with regards amenity and highway safety.