Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

19/05846/PRE 2 Bensham Lane, CR0 2RQ

Demolition of existing single storey commercial building and construction of mixed development of commercial/residential use in a single block a maximum of 11 storey in height to provide 60 new homes and ground floor commercial floorspace with alterations associated landscaping, new highway access and car/cycle parking as well as bin storage.

 

Ward: Broad Green

Minutes:

Demolition of existing single storey commercial building and construction of mixed development of commercial/residential use in a single block a maximum of 11 storey in height to provide 60 new homes and ground floor commercial floor space with alterations associated landscaping, new highway access and car/cycle parking as well as bin storage.

 

Ward: Broad Green

 

Richard Hyams, Matt Arnold and Ana Lopes attended to give a presentation and respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.

 

The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:

 

·         Comments were raised by Members relating to the commercial elements on the ground floor with concerns of the unit being empty, and the applicants informed that they would be seeking a community use to the market which will provide a flexible space. Members supported the commercial/community use and the rationale for it, particularly in support for a nursery provision. There was a request for how the nursery provision would work with the open space which is provided for young people.

 

·         Members expressed concerns regarding the materials and how they might appear in on a winter day, the applicants informed that the materials was appropriate for all seasons.

 

·         A Member had questions around the shading effect of the building.

 

·         Open space and play provision within the scheme was discussed and Members would like the focus to remain within the afford element.

 

·         There was indication from Members to explore the play and communal space design further and whether it was publicly accessible. The applicants explained the different areas for different ages and further explained the opportunity of sharing space with the neighbouring development, with the ground floor to be a play space for different ages and the terrace to be a more general use.

                                                                                                        

·         Members raised concerns with how the servicing of the building was to run.

 

·         There was concerns from Members for the concept of a pocket park at the front of the building, the execution of it and the design, and also accommodating provision for disabled parking spaces.

 

·         Comments from Members were raised in relation to the privacy on the balconies, there was a suggestion for storage on the balconies as part of the design.

 

·         There were mixed views by Members on the height and place specific policy, some Members expressed support on the increased height against the policy due to the affordable housing offer, other Members expressed their concern about the height and that policy should be adhered to in regardless to the affordable offer as it was not justified.

 

·         Members raised comments about the design of having a top middle and bottom expression was working in particular with regards to the balconies.

 

·         There was support for the 10% accessible units, though there was a steer from Members that the opportunity to increase that provision should be explored.

 

·         There were comments made around the other public spaces around the building beyond the play space and how the public realm works at the ground floor level, and comments were made on place making objectives; and the applicants noted that further work needed to be done around the public realm and the building.

 

·         Comments were made regarding the landscaping particularly around the play space and the long term maintenance of that space.

 

·         Comments were made around sufficient storage for the units for occupation.

 

·         Further comments were made on the affordable housing offer; the applicants informed that there was good momentum of 100% affordable provision, but the application was likely to seek a 50% provision.

 

·         Comments were made around support for the existing commercial premises.

 

·         There were comments relating the extent of which the Place Review Panel had an independent role to take view on the policy context and design which would be different to the local authority plan.

 

·         There were also comments in regards to the wind.

 

 

The Chair thanked the applicants for their presentation, and looked forward to their application returning to the Committee at a later stage.

 

Supporting documents: