Agenda item

Application 23/02725/FU - site on the north east side of Cross Green Lane to the west of the junction with Easy Road

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 38 apartments and office space.  This will represent a phased development to deliver 28 apartments as part of the western phase and 10 apartments with office space.  Associated landscaping and car parking is also sought.



The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 38 apartments and office space.  This will represent a phased development to deliver 28 apartments as part of the western phase and 10 apartments with office space as part of the eastern phase.  Associated landscaping and car parking was also sought.


Members attended the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.


Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:


·  The proposals would provide a residential development in a regeneration area which was supported in principal by Policy EB4.

·  Pictures of the existing buildings to be demolished were displayed.

·  Light impact assessments had been done from existing buildings.

·  The Cross Green Trading Estate was to the rear of the development and there had been objections due to the density of the proposed development, noise and disturbance, overshadowing, loss of privacy, design and scale of the proposals.

·  Elevation drawings of the proposals were displayed.  Office accommodation would be on the ground floor with residential properties on floors one to six.  There would be a walled garden on the seventh floor and this would only be available to residents.  There would also be green roofed areas which weren’t publicly accessible as well as photo voltaic panels.

·  A CGI was displayed which showed the different styles of solar shading that would be used.

·  It was felt that the size and massing was appropriate for the location and was highly sustainable with the use of heat pumps, solar panels and green roofs.

·  The was a positive regeneration scheme and was recommended for approval.


In response to questions from the Panel, discussion included the following:


·  Housing mix – city centre schemes usually provided approximately 10% 3 bed housing, at 13% this scheme was above average and felt to be policy compliant.  The 20% guideline referred to housing across the city as a whole.

·  Advice had been sought from Environmental Health and it was considered that there would not be a problem with noise disturbance to residents from the nearby commercial uses as this would be mitigated by the proposed use of mechanical ventilation and acoustic glazing.

·  It was felt that the site met the necessary policy criteria for making a greenspace contribution rather than on-site provision.

·  There had not been any recent car parking surveys ion the area and there was a need to differentiate between commuter and residential parking.  There would be a commuted sum should this development cause issues with parking and there would be traffic regulation orders in place and measures could be put in place to support local businesses.  Fifteen spaces would be created as part of the development including one disabled space.

·  Concern that the elevation drawings did not show sufficient detail.

·  Ward Members would be consulted prior to the spending of any greenspace contribution.

·  Two or three car parking spaces would be lost at the entrance of the development due to the need to achieve a visibility splay.

·  The applicant had agreed to re-use or recycle materials from the demolition of the existing buildings where possible.  This would be covered by a condition.

·  With regards to Policy EN1 and EN2, the Climate Change Team had been satisfied with the proposals.  The applicant had provided the evidence to satisfy the requirements of the policies.

·  There had been briefings with Ward Members and there had been contact between the applicant and Ward Members which had given opportunity to address their concerns.  There had been an offer from the applicant to meet Ward Members.

·  The walled garden would be accessible to all residents.

·  Electric vehicle charging points were required on all residential spaces under policy requirements.

·  There were no policy standards in relation to the recycling of materials.

·  The applicant had planned to make the scheme zero carbon and this had been considered in the design principals.  Insulation levels were higher than required levels and orientation of the development would take advantage of sunlight and reduce the energy burden.  There was also the use of photo voltaic panels and air source heat pumps.

·  The building took up the majority of the site which put constraints on space for landscaping.  Wherever the roof did not have photo voltaics, there would be greened spaces.  There was some opportunity at the front of the office space for planting.

·  Cycle storage would be internal.  There was ongoing work with the cycle infrastructure plan but there were no improvements planned as part of this development.


Members were asked for comments on the application.  Issues highlighted included the following:


·  The proposals were an example of good contemporary design.

·  Concern that there wasn’t more detail in the elevation drawings.

·  Although more detail would have been preferred, the application appeared to be sound and solid and the officer recommendation should be moved.

·  The application and presentation did not show the amount of detail that the Panel would usually ask for.  Could the application be deferred for a cycle to get further information on materials and design to enable Members to make a clear decision.


The motion to move the officer recommendation was seconded and subsequently voted against.


The motion to defer the application for one cycle was seconded and subsequently voted upon.  It was:


RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for one cycle.


(Councillor J McKenna and Councillor D Cohen left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.  Councillor C Gruen assumed the Chair).



Supporting documents: