Browse

Agenda item

18/06893/FUL Former Health Clinic The Halve Trowbridge Wiltshire BA14 8SA

Minutes:

Public Participation

Fiona Watson spoke in objection to the application

Steve Morris spoke in objection to the application

Darren Odell spoke in objection to the application

 

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that approval be granted, subject to conditions for the proposed development of the former health clinic building comprising a new second floor with 7 apartments and enlargement of the ground floor to accommodate a dental practice (D1 use class) within unit 1, the relocation of unit 2 and reduce the floor area of unit 3 with a new 2 bedroom apartment being created within the existing first floor (above the relocated ground floor unit 2) and external works.

 

The committee was informed prior to the officer’s slide presentation of a typographical error contained within the report. It was confirmed that the proposed 2 bed flat would be 43sq.m and not 53sq.m as reported.

 

The committee was also informed that three late representations had been received since the agenda publication, including a petition in support of the development submitted by the dental practice, which had 400 signatures. Members were however advised that the petition was handed in immediately before the start of committee proceedings and as a consequence, officers did not have the opportunity to review or confirm all the signatories. Members were however informed of the headline petition reasons for support.

 

The two other late representations raised objection against the application and it was noted that these had been circulated to members of the committee earlier in the week.  The case officer as part of his presentation, referenced the objection letters and informed the committee that within one of representations illustrations and impacts were included which the case officer considered to be inaccurate and for the benefit of the committee, the officer clarified the scaled measured dimensions and separation distances.

 

Reference was also made to a light assessment and the application of a 25 degree rule which was explained with the benefit of slides in addition to the content included within the published report. The committee was advised that whilst officers accepted the additional storey would result in some overshadowing and loss of direct sunlight to residential properties on the other side of the public carriageway, the development would not substantively fail the 25 degree test and that the impacts would not be severe enough to warrant a reason for refusal.

 

Members of the committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer with clarity being sought on: whether the application should have been submitted as an application for 14 flats by virtue of the proposed modifications to the consented first floor flats. Additional clarification was sought on the development being car free and the proposed arrangements for on-site car parking for the consented flats and D1 uses on the ground floor.  The committee also sought clarity on whether the application was CP45 compliant and whether the proposed amenity space would be sufficient enough for the number of flats being proposed. Members also sought clarification on the enforceability of the recommended parking and travel management plan condition.

 

In response, the officers explained the extant nature of the 2013 consented scheme and advised the committee that it was not permissible to require the applicant to pay s106 financial contributions for a scheme of less than 10 units. The site’s location close to the town centre (within walking distance) and close proximity to the Lovemead car park and good public transport links made it a highly sustainable site where a car free development (for the second floor flats) could be supported.  Reference was also made to the 2017 strategic housing market assessment which identified the shortage and lack of one bed units and that the development was not considered to conflict with CP45.  Although it was accepted that the proposed external amenity space was limited, officers argued that it would be sufficient as a communal provision and mindful that the town park was relatively close by, the objection raised on lack of amenity was not shared by officers. Members were advised of the reasons why officers sought to secure a switch in the on-site parking provision to avoid obstructions to the bin store and the necessity for the site and travel management plan. Members were advised that the site would require a degree of self-policing and mutual cooperation.

 

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application.

 

Following on from additional issues raised by members of the public, the officers advised the committee that if found to be present, asbestos had to be removed by licensed contractors and that a planning informative could be added to the recommendation if so desired by members.  The request to restrict the use of flats was earmarked as being unreasonable and permitted development rights were explained in summary. The committee was advised that ring fencing CIL payments solely for road traffic calming and infrastructure works along the Halve could not be secured by way of a planning condition. The concern and request made to limit the construction hours was not recommended by officers, but if it was the will of committee it could be condition appropriately.

 

Local Member, Councillor Stewart Palmen, spoke to the application noting that whilst the local community and town council welcomed the re-development of the site, the scheme was considered a missed opportunity and the applicant had failed to properly engage with the local community and had not presented a scheme that would secure a high quality mixed use of the existing building with additions. The proposed development was considered unacceptable and contrary to CP45 in light of the predominance of 1 bed units, CP57 conflicts by virtue of the lack of on–site parking, loss of light to neighbours and CP58 conflicts with conservation interests.

 

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Stewart Palmen and seconded by Councillor Sarah Gibson.

 

A debate followed and the key points were noted as: whether the size of the one bedroomed flats would satisfy government guidelines and the conservation impacts.

 

Following the vote the motion was lost.

 

A motion to defer the application for more information pursuant to the size of the proposed flats in relation to the guidelines was moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin and was seconded by Councillor Stewart Palmen.

 

Following the vote the motion was lost.

 

A motion was then moved to defer and delegate the approval of the application to the leading officer, subject to the development satisfying the minimum size standards was moved by Councillor Jonathon Seed which was seconded by Councillor David Halik. The motion was however caveated stressing that in the event of the applicant failing to engage with officers or satisfy the requirements, the application would need to be reported back to committee for member determination.

 

At the end of the debate it was;

 

Resolved

 

To defer and delegate the approval of the application to officers following   direct liaison with the applicant to secure confirmation that the flats would satisfy the minimum size requirements.

 

There was a five minute comfort break taken between 17:00 and 17:05.

 

Cllr David Halik left the meeting at 17:00

Supporting documents: