Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a ground floor extension and access gate alterations within the building curtilage and projection of first floor sitting room window onto the existing terrace.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from an Accordia resident. The written statement was read to Members by the Committee Manager.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          Spoke on behalf of a number of residents of Accordia who objected to the proposal.

     ii.          Believed objections recorded earlier in 2020 remained valid. The Committee had already refused an application containing the elements of this proposal and residents asked the committee to refuse this one.

   iii.          Did not intend to repeat the representation made at the committee meeting of Sept 10th but wished to comment on the Inspectors report of Dec 2019 and the recently published Design Guide for Accordia.

   iv.          Were of the view that the Planning Officer’s recommendation and Conservation Officer’s opinion appeared to be heavily influenced by their interpretation of the Inspectors report that dismissed the appeal. Objectors believed that the Officer's recommendation needed thorough examination.

    v.          Queried whether the proposal would detract from the architectural uniformity of the dwellings in the terraces was a good test. The Inspector focused on 'visibility' whereas an assessment should also take account of the main architectural characteristics of the dwelling and the terrace blocks.

   vi.          The proposal at ground floor is to put a glazed box within the part covered space, topped by a "geometrical” shaped lantern or rooflight. The sections give a sense of how the full height glazing would be at the back of the railings and gates fronting the garden. The proposed rear elevation does not give an indication of this relationship and the conversion of a courtyard area to indoor living space. The original courtyard transparency would not continue (contrary to what is said in the design and access statement). The gate/railings would be a partial screen at the front of the new windows and one can speculate on what subsequent action will take place.

 vii.          Even with the retention of the 'gates' there would be two picture windows, disrupting the appearance and architectural composition at ground floor level from the communal garden.

viii.          Estimated there were 37 homes on the site built in the same style. An essential feature was the internal open spaces and the continuity of design that is created.

   ix.          Highlighted the Inspector did not exercise his discretion to grant planning permission for the ground and first floor elements through a split decision.

    x.          The Design Guide for Accordia’s primary purpose was to assist owners as they consider changes to their properties. The working group fully recognise that owners may wish to adapt or renovate their properties over time and the Guide sets out on in a clear manner the considerations that need to be taken into account before embarking on change or replacement of key features that are integral to the homogeneity of the Accordia development.

   xi.          Objectors believed that Accordia is, and should in the long term remain, a model not just of architectural good practice, but also of residents’ commitment to their surroundings and to building a community.

 xii.          The Guide is a manifestation of the intent along with the work undertaken to support the Article 4 Direction and Conservation area status.

xiii.          Objectors urged you to reject the proposal as it contravenes Planning Policies 56(b and f), 58(g) , 82(b) and the Cycle Parking Guide SPD.

 

Ms Richardson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Thornburrow (Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                The Committee should consider the impact of the application on:

a.    The building and setting.

b.    Current and future occupiers.

ii.               The building was of national importance as Accordia was the first site to receive a national design award.

iii.             Previous iterations of the application were stopped before Article 4 came into effect.

iv.             The effect of harm/public benefit of the proposed work should be considered. There may be some harm from the work to the cohesion of the character of the area/terrace.

v.              There was space for car parking but not bikes or other paraphernalia, so a car would likely be parked on the street. Cycle storage standards were not met. There was not enough bike and bin storage space.

vi.             The poor design meant the application would not be considered acceptable if it came forward as a new (independent) scheme.

vii.           The application would impact on access from the living area into communal areas.

viii.         Referenced the 2018 Local Plan. The application:

a.    Did not respond to context.

b.    Did not meet Policies 55, 58 or 61.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.

 

Councillor Thornburrow did not take part in the discussion or decision making for this item.