Agenda item

Registered Plan No.: 14/00878/FULMAJ

Proposal: Refurbishment and extension of the existing office building including (i) the construction of an additional storey (incorporating plant) (ii) reconstruction of the facade on Aldersgate Street (iii) provision of retail floorspace (Class A1) at ground floor level (84sq.m.) (iv) provision of roof terraces at 7th and 8th floor levels (v) installation of an additional access point at the rear of the building, and (vi) associated internal and external alterations (total increase in floorspace 1,913sq.m.).

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director detailed site and surrounding information to Members.

Robert Barker, Gillie Bexson, Averil Baldwin, Alpesh Lad and Ann Holmes spoke against the application and Martin Claisse, Tim Fyles and Sam Hine spoke in favour of the application.

During the discussion, amongst several points particular reference was made to the following –

·         The impact of the increase in height and bulk at roof level on the daylight and sunlight hours and amenity of surrounding residential properties, and sunlight/daylight to the play area adjacent to Seddon House  Some Members expressed concern notwithstanding  that the Daylight and Sunlight Report submitted with the application stated that as a result of the proposed development, all windows within the surrounding residential properties would meet the Building Research Establishment (BRE) good practice guidelines for daylight and sunlight; and that the Light Pollution and Amenity Report submitted during the application process stated that the proposals would result in no change to the sunlight condition to the play area adjacent to Seddon House.

·         Members discussed the proposal for the creation of roof terraces on the 7^th and 8^th floor levels and expressed concern regarding noise nuisance and it was considered that this would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Upon being put to the vote, planning permission was refused –

Vote: 1 in favour, 13 against, 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused because of adverse impacts of the development on residential amenity, and that the Chief Planning Officer be delegated authority to prepare the formal reason for refusal to reflect the Committee’s decision.

NOTE: THE REASON FOR REFUSAL CONTAINED IN THE DECISION WHICH WAS ISSUED ON FRIDAY, 5^TH DECEMBER LETTER WAS AS FOLLOWS:

The proposed alteration and extension of the building which includes an increase in bulk and height, and the formation of accessible terraces would lead to a diminution of residential amenity to nearby residential occupiers contrary to Core Strategy CS21 and Draft Local Plan Policy DM 21.3