Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. It was explained that the recommendation was for approval of the listed building consent application but for refusal of the planning application. The listed building consent application sought approval for alterations to the rear of 34-35 and 36-38 Billing Road, including the demolition of extensions, rear basement access stairs and removal of upper floor escape ladders, replacement of ground floor access stairs and late 20th century windows and doors to include reinstatement of blocked up openings and associated works. The listed building consent only related to the works to the listed buildings themselves. The development also included the erection of a new build block on the existing car park, comprising of 14 assisted living flats facing Palmerston Road, with associated works. This new build block did not require listed building consent as it was not attached to the listed building, however it forms part of the planning application. It was explained that whilst the principle of assisted living was acceptable, the design of this block was not; it would appear out of character and cause unacceptable harm to the street scene and wider conservation area. Additionally, the new build aspect to the rear of the site would overlook rear gardens of residential properties on Palmerston Road. Highways had further objected to the proposal due to the loss of parking spaces, narrow proposed entrance and gate being situated too close to the road. As such the new build block could not be supported and the recommendation for the planning application was for refusal due to the unacceptable design and impact upon the conservation area, the unacceptable impact upon neighbouring amenity, and the unacceptable highway safety impact.

Mr Giles Greenhalgh, the architect on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that details from the existing building were reflected in the proposed development; it was a prominent site and that is why the height has been used, and that the gardens on Palmerston Road were already overlooked due to the nature of terraced houses. Mr Greenhalgh suggested that Highways’ measurements of the entrance width and distance of the gate from the road were incorrect.

In response to questions Mr Greenhalgh advised that there was no lift and people with mobility issues would be located on the ground floor.

Maureen Minami, the proposed Care Home Manager, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the location was suitable for facilitating care for vulnerable young people.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that any service user with mobility issues would be housed on the ground floor and that provisions would be in place to evacuate those with mobility issues on the upper floors.

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Planning and Highways officers had independently measured the proposed entrance to the site and parking spaces and were confident that their measurements were correct. The Officer advised that the pre-application advice service was available should the developer need advice on an amended scheme but that the site was highly constrained and it would be hard to provide the desired number of units  in this location.

Councillors Cali and Dyball joined the meeting at this juncture but took no part in the discussion  or the vote.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That application WNN/2021/0562 be REFUSED as per the officer recommendation and that application WNN/2021/0563 be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.