6.1 – 12/P/1053/F –
Comments have been received from the Crime Prevention Design Advisor. The majority of issues raised concern the detailed design of the development, including the design of external doors; automatic closing and locking of building accesses; garden and open areas should be maintained to ensure natural surveillance and security; rear garden fences should be a minimum of 1.8m high and the possibility of additional ground floor windows in side walls adjacent to car parking areas.
Officer comment: Rear boundary walls are proposed to be a minimum of 1.8m high. The developer as a Housing Association fully intends to comply with Secure by Design criteria and will ensure this is carried out. No adverse impacts will result to neighbouring residents.
Conservation Area extension update.
The Conservation and Heritage Officer is carrying out preliminary work and assistance has been sought from local historians.
Third Party objections.
Since the committee report was written a further 16 letters of objection have been received. Additional or new planning issues raised are:
i) Letters re-notifying neighbours of revised plans were not received.
ii) The reduction of numbers of units from 6 to 4 at the rear is not sufficient to overcome residents concerns nor the issues raised by South Area Committee in September 2012;
iii) The new buildings are not replacing any which were previously existing on site;
iv) The plans are proposing a mini, walled social housing estate which will not integrate with the existing houses;
v) There should be further consideration of slow worms on site;
vi) There is only 4m between the new houses windows and neighbours gardens whereas there should be 10m to accord with the Council’s Residential Design Guide.
vii) The development would provide poor quality living accommodation for the residents.
viii) The proposal compares to a previous 2006 application on site for 34 flats in a large block which was refused in part due to high density, noise and disturbance, loss of green open space and trees, overlooking and loss of light to neighbours and dismissed at appeal.
· Letters notifying neighbours of the revised plans were generated and posted and which allowed more then 14 days before the committee date. Further letters have been sent out again following complaints from neighbours. Comments were requested by the committee date.
· The Council’s Ecologist did not require conditions in relation to slow worms. None were seen on site in the Ecological survey and they are protected under separate existing legislation.
There was a large two
storey extension to the rear of
The new extension to the
rear of 89/91 is approximately 4m from the site boundary but does not include
any side facing windows. A new window is being introduced into the existing
elevation of the retained building to serve a bedroom. Planning permission is not normally
required to create windows in existing buildings but in view of the
objections raised a further condition is recommended to require the window to
be obscure glazed. There are 2 first floor windows approximately 20 metres
from the rear projection to
· The 2006 application for 34 new build flats was dismissed at appeal but only because the size and bulk of the new building (which replaced the two villas) would be visually unacceptable and harmful to the appearance and character of the area.
· There are no objections due to highway safety.
· Applications for 100% affordable housing are not contrary to adopted policy in principle. Policies require that major residential applications for open market housing should have a minimum of 30% on site affordable housing.
· The Council’s current parking standards have been exceeded.
The Housing Association proposing to purchase the site has commented:
The Council’s annual target is to provide 150 affordable houses per year, in 2011 only 42 units were provided. The Association successfully manages about 12,000 properties in the West of England. They consider that the increased car parking spaces and the reduction in the number of units should be sufficient for the application to be approved.
Amendment to recommendation
Additional condition 18:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, the windows on the first floor east elevation and the first floor west elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be glazed permanently with glazing that provides a degree of obscuration no less obscure than that which is provided by privacy level 3 of the Pilkington Group Limited textured glass range as defined in publication "Pilkington Textured Glass Range" (published January 2010). This window shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy GDP/3 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (saved policies).
tem 6.2 - 12/P/2068/F – GE Oil and Gas, High Street, Nailsea
Additional third party comments.
Six additional letters of objection have been received concerning the proposed development. The grounds of objection concern some or all of those previously reported and addressed in the report to the North Area Committee and the Committee update sheet
A meeting has taken place between officers, the Chairmen of P&R and North Area Committees and representatives of the applicant (GE Oil& Gas) and a director of J R W Properties (the owners of Coates Estate) as requested by the Area Committees. The meeting allowed each party to highlight its case and provided the opportunity for queries to be raised.