Agenda item

            (Councillor Groogan, having declared an interest in the item, did not participate in the discussion or vote in respect of this item and left the meeting for the duration.)

            The Senior Planning officer reminded the Committee that she had presented the details of the application to the Committee at its meeting on 21st October, 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposals at first hand, particularly to consider the useable amenity space on site.  The site visit had taken place on 11th November, 2021.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack where two further objection letters had been received in respect of the application, from Councillor Gormley and Councillor McKeown.  The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee of the officers response to the points raised within the objections.  She explained that alleygates could not be included as part of the proposal, nor could they be conditioned, as the area was outside the red line boundary of the planning application. 

            The Members were advised that the total number of objections, including the two which were included within the Late Items pack, stood at 77. 

            An objection which had been received since the last Committee report raised issues with the measurements presented in the original case officer report whereby it stated that “the gable wall of Block B was located approximately 10.3 metres from the rear wall of No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue” (para 8.16). The objector claimed that the measurement of 10.3 metres was actually from the rear wall of the primary terrace. No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue had a large extension at the rear, which extended approximately 5.6 metres from the main terrace. The rear wall of the extension was located approximately 4.75 metres from Block B. The objector stated that the measurement should have been taken from the rear wall of the extension as the proposed block B was located 4 metres from that rear wall. The objector advised that their rear yard was bound on both sides by 10 metre high returns and that the proposed Block B would result in the filling in of the gap at the rear and would close off any natural light coming into the yard. 

The Senior Planning officer explained that paragraph 8.16 specifically related to the impact of the proposal on the outlook for existing and proposed occupiers.  She advised that No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue had windows looking towards Block B on the rear wall of the primary terrace, however, there were no windows on the rear wall of the extension. Consequently, the windows potentially impacted by the outlook were approximately 10.3 metres from the proposed Block B.

            The objector had also raised an issue regarding the natural light experienced within the rear yard at No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue.  The Senior Planning officer outlined that, with regard to the surrounding context, it would appear that the rear yard of No. 8 was a relatively dark space which very rarely experienced direct sunlight. Furthermore, the proposed Block B was not overly large and that the hipped roof would lessen any impacts and it was located due north and, therefore, would not create a shadow.

The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee that, following the October Committee meeting, the case officer had emailed the planning agent, highlighting the concerns which had been raised by Members regarding the communal amenity space and enquiring if any consideration had been given to amending the proposal as a result of the concerns.  The Members were advised that the agent had responded advising that an option to increase ‘usable’ amenity space would be to reduce planting around the building, however, he acknowledged that the planting and vegetation would help to soften the proposal. He stated that the provision of balconies would not be in keeping with the surrounding context and would exacerbate overlooking concerns to the rear. The agent had also stated that the useable amenity space amounted to more than 45 square metres and noted the surrounding context of the site and the proximity of local amenities. Ha had also stated that the objections in relation to the quality of amenity space were somewhat incompatible with the objectors’ support for the previously approved scheme on the site, which had included no amenity space or landscaping within a higher density development.

            The Senior Planning officer explained that, since the previous Committee meeting, the final DfI Roads Consultation had since been received, approving the application with conditions.

            A Member expressed concern regarding the proposal.

            Moved by Councillor Garrett

            Seconded by Councillor Maskey and

          Resolved - that the Committee refuses the application as it is contrary to PPS7 Quality Residential Environments, including PPS7 Addendum - Safeguarding Residential Areas, in that it would have a negative impact on both the character of the established residential area and the residents in the immediate location of Shaftesbury Avenue and Cooke Mews. Furthermore, the application is refused insofar as it would exacerbate the existing parking constraints within surrounding streets with a negative impact on the established residential area and due to the provision of minimal amenity space; and accordingly  the Committee agrees to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the refusal reasons.