Variation of condition 2 (in accordance with approved plans) of permission APP/Q6810/A/16/314218 to amend the internal layout of the second floor to provide 8, 1 bed units and 2, 4 bed units in lieu of 8, 1 bed units.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Wynn Jones
Minutes:
Change
condition number 2 (in accordance with the approved plans) of planning
permission number APP/Q6810/A/16/314218 to modify the internal layout of the
second floor to provide 8 one bedroom units and 2 four bedroom units instead of
8 one bedroom units.
(a) The
Development Control Manager expanded upon the background to the application
noting that it was an application to amend condition number 2 of a previous
planning permission in order to provide two additional units within the
development (namely, a total of 29 units instead of the 27 that were previously
approved). It was noted that the plan did not entail any changes to the
external appearance of the building nor the setting of windows from what had
already been approved on appeal.
It
was noted that the previous application had been approved on appeal and that
the planning inspector was of the opinion that the number of units was fairly
moderate and would not be an over-development of the site or be likely to lead
to any substantial damage to the amenities of existing residents in terms of
noise or disturbance because of the layout and design of the building, control
of the use and the presence of businesses in the adjacent neighbourhood.
In
addition, it was emphasised that there had been no change to the policy
position since the previous plan was approved and, therefore, the principle
continued to be acceptable as the use had already been approved and that this
proposal was a minor amendment to that planning permission. The need could not,
therefore, be questioned.
It
was noted that significant consideration and weight had to be given to the
clear lead given at the recent appeal decision. The development complied with
the GUDP and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.
(a)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:-
·
The only thing in question was the internal layout;
·
Layout was changed as there was no demand for the
types of units designed;
·
That the proposal would provide quality self contained units for students;
·
The inspector had noted in deciding the appeal
that: "Contrary to the Council's opinion, I consider that the number of
units being proposed is fairly moderate."
(b)
The local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) objected to the application and he made the following main points:
·
That he
had not been aware of the appeal until after
the decision;
·
His disappointment
that allowing the application was being considered as there
was no demand for this kind
of provision;
·
That the flats
would be empty as the size of the rooms would be too small;
·
That he was angry that a
historic building had been lost.
(ch) In response to the observations by the local member,
the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted :-
·
That he had discussed the issue of receiving notice
of the appeal with the local member and it had become clear that there had been
technical problems with the member's i-Pad resulting
in the member not receiving the notice;
·
That he understood the concerns and the
disappointment of losing a building but in light of the recent appeal decision,
as it was an application for two additional units only, it would be difficult
to attest a refusal.
(d) It
was proposed to refuse the application as it was an over
development. The proposal
was seconded.
The
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the committee had refused the
original application as it was an over-development and if this application was
refused on the same basis, it would risk incurring costs against the Council at
appeal, especially considering that there would be no physical changes made to
the building. It was noted that the
proposer and seconder would be expected to represent the Council on appeal.
In
response to the observation by the proposer that two additional units meant
that the proposal was not the same, the Senior Solicitor noted that the fact
that the proposal was not the same did not mean that it was an
over-development, and that the impact of both additional units was unacceptable
from a planning point of view would have to be attested.
The
proposer withdrew his proposal.
The
seconder noted his desire to refuse the application due to excess of student
accommodation, that the site of the application was in a residential area for
families and that there were parking problems on Euston Road. In response, the
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that, if the application was refused on
these grounds, the appeal would be lost with costs incurred by the Council, so
he would have no choice but to refer the application to a cooling-off period.
(dd)
It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application.
In
response to an observation from a member in terms of an end goal for student
accommodation applications, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that it
was necessary to deal with the application before them. He added that, once the Joint Local
Development Plan had been adopted, the policies would provide more detail and
would help the Committee in determining applications.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted:
·
That it was difficult to find reasons to justify
refusing the application considering that the original had been approved on
appeal;
·
Sympathy with the local member and that a trend was
emerging where developers were receiving approval for student accommodation and
were selling the sites for profit rather than developing them;
·
That the site was too far from the University and
in an area for families, setting a precedent;
·
Sadness at the loss of a historic building.
RESOLVED to approve the application.
Conditions:
1. Time
2. Comply with the plans.
3. Comply with the conditions imposed on the permission granted on appeal
APP/Q6810/A/16/314218 (slate, materials,
Welsh Water / land drainage issues, landscaping).
Supporting documents: