Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which sought the Committee’s approval for the conversion of an existing factory building to 19 self-contained flats for supported living and associated works including external alterations, the formation of new vehicular access, under croft parking, stopping up of the existing access, creation of amenity space, and partial demolition. It was noted that there had been no statutory objections to the application and it was explained that due to the removal of the non-residential use which was previously unrestricted, any overlooking to nearby properties was considered acceptable on balance.

Councillor Purser addressed the Committee in his capacity as a Ward Member and spoke against the application. He voiced concern around the impact on local residents, potential safeguarding issues and noted that the proposal lacked any communal space for occupants, or space for staff.

In response to a question, Councillor Purser stated that he believed 1 member of staff would be inadequate to support all of the occupants of the development.

James Atkins, a local resident, addressed the Committee and spoke against the application. He voiced concern around the loss of privacy to properties opposite the proposed development and at the lack of amenities proposed. He believed that the town centre was a more appropriate location for such a development.

Councillor Stone addressed the Committee and spoke against the application and commented that the application was a severe overdevelopment which lacked amenities. She felt the proposal was unsuitable for young people and the applicant was focused on making money to the detriment of the occupants. She asked that the Committee defer the application so that it could come back with more amenities.

In response to a question, Councillor Stone felt that the proposed development would become a magnet for crime.

Roy Hammond, the agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He commented that the town lacked this type of accommodation; the applicant was seeking to equip young people to succeed as adults. There would be 2 members of staff onsite during the day and 1 at night, and Mr Hammond noted that the Children’s Trust supported the application. He further noted that the application had been amended following concerns, that parking was provided as part of the application, national minimum space standards were met, and the unrestricted “bad neighbour” use would be removed.

In response to a question, Mr Hammond advised that the applicant operated similar properties in the town successfully.

Councillor Hill addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He commented that concerns around waste and parking had been addressed by the applicant. He noted that there were more than 1200 looked after children in the town that should not be marginalised, and that there was wide support for the application.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that an area of open space would be provided for the occupants, and that the windows could not be glazed as the outlook for occupants would be restricted.

Members discussed the report and made the following comments:

·       Some felt that the application was admirable

·       Some felt that there would be too many occupants and that a smaller number of units would be more appropriate.

Councillor King proposed and Councillor Connolly seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation was put to a vote and declared carried with 6 votes for and 1 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.