Agenda item

Alterations and extensions to existing office building including erection of mansard storey on north wing; change of use of central building and southern wing from B1 offices to form 2 dwellings (C3).

The Chairman, Cllr Newbury left the meeting at this stage and Cllr Jonathon Seed took the Chair.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of objection by Klas Hyllen (Neighbourhood Group)

Statement of support by Mel Clinton (Agent)

Statement of support by Robert Moore (Custodian)

Statement of support by Colin Scragg (Marketing Agent)

Statement of objection by Bradford on Avon Town Council

The senior planning officer, Steven Sims, introduced the report which recommended granting planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions, for alterations and extensions to existing office building including erection of mansard storey on north wing; change of use of central building and southern wing from B1 offices to form 2 dwellings (C3).

It was noted that two late representations had been received but these had raised no new substantive issues from one neighbouring resident and the Town Council, although members were advised that during the case officers presentation mention would be made to the key issues being highlighted by those objecting to the application.

The committee was informed that the site was located within central Bradford on Avon (BoA) and within the BoA conservation area. Manvers House was a Grade II listed building with a number of other listed buildings nearby. The committee was advised that the subject property was located in a mixed-use area with commercial and residential development and the site context was detailed in the officer’s report and the committee presentation slides.

Members heard that the Manvers House application site comprised of three essential elements: the main central 3 storey building with elements dating back to the 17^th Century.  A 19^th century addition built off the south east elevation and a two-storey modern 20^th century office wing, which was built off the north west elevation of the original Manvers House property.

The main elements of the proposal were to:

·       Convert of the main building from a vacant office to a 6-bedroom dwelling (with no external alterations)

·       To alter and convert the south wing from vacant offices to a 3-bedroom dwelling (with external and internal alterations); and

·       To construct a new mansard roof to the north wing of approximately 3m in height to provide an additional storey of office space.

The committee heard the case officer report that in response to a local concern raised about the materials to be used for the mansard roof, condition 3 as detailed in the report would require and secure appropriate materials – with the case officers publicly outlining the expectation that the materials would need to be of high quality to reflect and respect the protective status of the subject building and site location.

The proposed uses of the subject building were explained verbally along with direct references being made to detailed parts of the committee report.

The committee was advised that through the use of planning conditions, the Council could secure mitigation and safeguards to ensure that the development would not result in substantively harming neighbouring amenities through securing obscure glazing and preventing additional wall openings. Members also saw a series of slides as part of the presentation which confirmed the existing arrangements and the case officer observed that a degree of overlooking already exists to which due regard should be given.

The case officer advised that the proposed development would not result in significant loss of light or overshadowing to the rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings and conditions could define the terms of any permission.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on the proposed provision of a balcony to the rear, which the case officer advised would not be accessible by office workers and a planning condition could be imposed to prevent any door or wall opening access to such an external roof space.

The Democratic Services Officer, Kieran Elliott, then read out the public statements that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as detailed above. All statements were also available to view in the Agenda Supplement 1, published prior to the meeting.

Cllr Sarah Gibson, as Division Member, stated that she had called the application in mostly at the request of the Town Council due to its concern regarding the loss of commercial office floorspace. The committee was informed that building had been part of the Avon works and the Avon rubber factory for most of its life and had a strategic position as part of appreciating the industrial past for the town and given the previous loss of employment floorspace within the town, this application would lose more office floorspace – which is a concern locally.

Cllr Gibson accepted that the 21th century addition was not of great architectural value but argued that the application submission failed to illustrate what was proposed showing the full local context.

Cllr Gibson observed that the south-west façade, looking from the back, and appreciating the level changes, there would be a considerable amount of overbearing and overlooking effects for the existing buildings and all of the windows should be obscured glazed.

Cllr Gibson raised a proposal for the committee to consider deferring making a decision to enable committee members to visit the site to see the property and its local context to assist in determining the proposed development for the mansard roof and the potential impacts on neighbouring buildings behind.

This motion of a deferral was seconded by Cllr Ridout.

The Committee then debated the proposal of deferral, with Cllr Davis questioning the merits of a deferment given that the committee had heard and seen a comprehensive presentation and report. Cllr Gibson in response remarked that a site visit would be beneficial for members to see for themselves the relevant levels of the buildings and the nearby properties to the rear.

Following the debate, the motion of a deferral for a member site visit was voted on which included a request for the case officer to ascertain whether the occupiers of 1-2 Kingston Road would permit the committee members access to the neighbouring properties.

Resolved

That application 20/01219/FUL & 20/02055/LBC be deferred pending a members site visit.