Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application had previously come to the Planning Committee and received approval in principle in October 2020. It was advised that the scheme was identical to the previous approval, and the reason for the re-submission was due to the previous scheme expiring before a S106 could be completed. It was advised that it remained considered that the scheme would be acceptable with regards to design, neighbouring impact and parking. EV charging had increased within this scheme from 4 spaces to 20 which was outlined as an improvement. It was advised that the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority and Anglian Water all had no objection to the scheme. Members were pointed to the Committee Addendum.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Walker addressed the Committee and expressed concerns regarding flooding in Far Cotton and ongoing parking issues. Councillor Roberts then addressed the Committee and echoed the parking and flood concerns in the area. Councillor Roberts expressed her concern that no objections had been raised concerning flooding as she had contacted the Local Flood Authority and they commented that the recent flooding had been very problematic due to the Victorian sewer in the area, which would continue to worsen as large developments are built in Far Cotton. It was further advised that the façade of the existing building should be retained.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Roberts addressed the Committee and raised concerns with whether the archaeology of the site had been investigated, the loss of affordable housing, that the existing building should be preserved, that there is insufficient parking, and that the building has gone into ruin since the original consent with anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping.

Next Nigel Ozier, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Planning Committee and assured members that a new flood risk assessment had been carried out and that both the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority had no objections. He confirmed that there were conditions relating to flooding. He explained that in terms of parking highways had not posed any objections. The agent advised that it was likely that not all the spaces would be use and 20 EV points would be available. It was advised that the previous approval was a strong material planning consideration, with the parking having already been approved, that EV parking had improved, that the building was not listed and had already had consent to be demolished, and that the redevelopment of the site was needed.

Members asked if the residential parking would be secured. Mr Ozier advised that it would be and could be allocated if there was a demand once built.

Members asked the Principal Planning Officer if waste would be managed properly and if the open spaces would be maintained. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the maintenance of open space would be negotiated with the section 106 contribution and there was a bin store located on site, and a condition in the report related to waste and requested more information on who would take the bins out for collection and cleaning of the waste area. A further question was raised as to when the building works would take place and it was advised that the Council could only require the development to start within three years or the permission lapsed.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the completion of an S106 as per the recommendation and for the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.