Agenda item

To consider planning application 23/0426 for external alterations to include front extension and whole roof lift, balconies to Harrow Place and New South Promenade elevations and use of premises as altered as 66 self-contained permanent flats with associated car parking, bin store, boundary treatment and highway works.

Application under section 73 to allow the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission 16/0421 to alter various floor layouts, relocation of gym and entrance position, removal of residents lounge in C Block, relocation of windows and amendments to highway and car parking layouts.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0426 for external alterations to include the front extension and whole roof lift, balconies to Harrow Place and New South Promenade elevations and use of premises as altered as 66 self-contained permanent flats with associated car parking, bin store, boundary treatment and highway works. The Committee also considered the application under Section 73 and 73A to allow the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission 16/0421 to alter various floor layouts, relocation of gym and entrance position, removal of residents lounge in C Block, relocation of windows and amendments to highway and car parking layouts.

The Committee was advised that the application site was subject to a long and complex planning history and also referred to an application granted in July 2023 for the redevelopment of numbers 6-8 Harrow Place for 15 flats, which was subject to a condition preventing commencement until a parking scheme had been secured. The applications on the agenda for this meeting related to Coastal Point and although the scheme as a whole encompassed numbers 2-4 Harrow Place and number 647-655 New South Promenade, in planning application terms the flats at numbers 653-655 New South Promenade sat outside the red edge of the current applications. These were still relevant as the original planning permission 16/0421 sought to secure parking for the whole of the Coastal Point Scheme. Ms Parker advised that the Council’s original approach was innovative, as the Council was keen to facilitate development on a site with buildings in a poor state or repair, however a number of technical obstacles had become apparent which had then delayed any progress. In addition to this, the Coastal Point development under planning application 16/0421 did not progress in accordance with the original permission granted due to various reasons. At this juncture the Committee was reminded that breach of planning control was not in itself justification for formal planning action unless that breach resulted in material planning harm.

Ms Parker continued to outline the planning history and the timeline of the current applications, along with the application for 6-8 Harrow Place approved in July 2023. A new parking arrangement was devised to meet the requirements of all applications and in order to achieve this, both developers would need to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement. The Applicant for the three applications to be determined by the Committee tonight could enter into their Section 106 Agreement though those applications and the applicant for 6-8 Harrow Place had been advised to submit a discharge of condition application to enter into their Section 106 agreement. Ms Parker noted that draft legal agreements had not been issued for inclusion with the agenda but these would be issued as soon as possible.

Ms Parker continued to outline the position in respect of the Section 106 agreements and, under those agreements, both developers would be required to dedicate an area of land to deliver parking provision, with both paying a capital contribution to provision, and liable to pay for parking for a five-year period. The parking scheme for the three applications before the Committee would have 87 spaces for 88 flats which was not a 1:1 ratio, but was considered to be the best overall solution. Ms Parker summarised the process that would be followed once all Section 106 agreements had been completed and the Committee was advised that a Traffic Regulation Order would be required to enable the Council to use the highway for parking or to restrict traffic flows to one way. As Traffic Regulation Orders were subject to their own legislation, this would be an opportunity for local resident to make representations.

As outlined in the umbrella report, the Committee was reminded that the layby on the southern side of Harrow Place outside number 10 was proposed to be unrestricted as there was sufficient parking provision within the curtilage of this property. Ms Parker asked the Committee to note that should the demand for parking permits on the scheme be less than 100% take-up then the Council may need to re-evaluate the scheme and make spaces available for general pay and display use, however any such changes would be via the Traffic Regulation Order process and not the planning process.

Ms Parker then outlined specific information in respect of application number 23/0426 which was a variation of condition application under Section 73 and 73a. The internal and external alterations proposed were considered to be acceptable and had been assessed within the Committee report. In respect of viability and planning obligations, Ms Parker advised that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that it was not viable to provide any such obligations, other than those required to deliver the parking scheme. As such it was the view of the officers that the importance of delivery the parking scheme meant that the scheme could be supported, despite the lack of full planning obligations.

In conclusion for planning application 23/0426, Ms Parker asked the Committee to resolve to support the proposal and to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to signature of a Section 106 Agreement, the conditions listed in the Committee Report and the conditions listed in the Update Note.

Mr D Storton spoke in objection to the application and had also registered to speak on application numbers 23/0430 and 23/0440. As these applications were linked to each other, the Chair allowed Mr Storton to speak on each application concurrently, using all of his allocated time during this item. Mr Storton referred to an email sent to Councillors and Officers and provided the Committee with verbatim extracts of the email. Mr Storton advised the Committee that he had lived in his property for 23 years and that he had raised concerns in respect of parking arrangements within the development with the Council and the Member of Parliament. In relation to parking, Mr Storton outlined the contact had with various officers and previous on-site meetings and Planning Committee meetings. In relation to parking matters, Mr Storton advised the Committee that unrestricted access to the parking layby would resolve parking issues.

Mr K Allen, Traffic and Highways Officer, provided the Committee with clarification on the Traffic Regulation Order process in relation to parking and the layby highlighted by Mr Storton and emphasised that this was a separate process to the Planning process.

Ms J Fox, Agent for the Applicant spoke on application number 23/0426 and also provided the Committee with her client’s views on the umbrella report at Item 7 of the agenda that had been previously noted. She advised the Committee that the application site was within the red edge on the plans provided and that parking issues and the layby previously mentioned was not within the red edge, was subject to a separate process and was not, in her view, relevant to the Committee’s deliberations. Ms Fox provided the Committee with an overview of the planning history on the site and the time that it had taken to determine previous applications and to bring the three applications related to Harrow Place to the Committee and asked that the Committee resolved to support the application as outlined in the Committee Report and Update Note.

Ms Fox also spoke on applications 23/0426 and 23/0440 and her submission in respect of those applications is contained within the minutes for each of those items.

The Committee discussed application number23/0426 at length in conjunction with planning applications 23/0426 and 23/0430 and noted the submissions from Mr Storton and Ms Fox along with the complex planning history of the site. The Committee noted that the Traffic Regulation Process was separate to the Planning process.

Resolved:

1.      To support the application and delegate approval to the Head of Development Management, subject to the signing of a S106 agreement to secure the parking scheme necessary to make the development acceptable and the conditions listed in the Committee Report and Update Note.

2.      To authorise the Head of Development Management to make changes to the wording of the conditions as may be appropriate as long as the changes would not materially affect what the condition is trying to achieve or the permission overall.