Agenda item

Cllr A Brown left the meeting.

The PL left the meeting for this item and was replaced by the DMO.

Officer’s report

The ADP introduced the officer’s report and recommendation to approval. He detailed the history of the site and confirmed those relevant conditions detailed on prior planning approvals still applied with this application.

With respect of public representations, the ADP confirmed that 15 representations had been received and noted that that there had been some confusion about the proposal. The ADP relayed the submission from the Local Member, Cllr E Spagnola who was unable to attend the meeting. Cllr Spagnola considered that clarification was needed for the benefit of neighbours who were unclear what the application intended to do.

The ADP summarised the proposed changes including: the introduction of further basement car parking (incorporating electric car charging points) and the alternative use (e.g. landscaping and the larger Woodland House) to some of the previously proposed external car parking areas (no longer proposed). Changed elevation designs, including to the roof design, to Maplewood, Woodland and Rosewood Blocks), it was noted that there would not be an increase to the overall roof height.

Re-siting of the day room to the southern boundary, effectively replacing the former 2 and a half storey residential block (‘Laurel House’), the 6 units lost from Laurel House were included within a larger footprint ‘Woodland House’.

Many of the representations received related to the area between Maplewood and Oakwood, with residents expressing concern about the lack of landscaping, though it was noted there had been no changes proposed from the existing scheme in this area. Irrespective, the applicant had agreed to introduce a planting scheme consisting of hedgerows and trees to form a visual buffer between developments. Traffic calming measures would also be addressed by way of condition, as would a construction management plan.

Public Speakers

None.

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr P Fisher thanked the ADP for his clarification. He asked about the likelihood of whether the buildings would be built out given the extensive history of the site.

     ii.        The ADP noted that it was the applicant’s intention to start construction in the coming weeks subject to permission being granted. He acknowledged that the applicant had received approval for other historic applications and could decide to build out earlier schemes, though remarked this was unlikely.

    iii.        Cllr P Neatherway reflected that much of the site was yet to be built out and asked about the adequacy of surface water drainage.

   iv.        The ADP advised that the Council had consulted with the lead local flood authority who were satisfied with the scheme. He confirmed that residents had not raised any issues regarding water drainage when they made their representations.

     v.        Cllr V Holliday considered it sensible that the day room had been re-sited to a central location. She reflected on parking arrangements with use of underground parking and the narrowing of the existing road, and asked if either of these arrangements were of concern.

   vi.        The ADP confirmed that revised scheme removed visitor parking from Mangrove, hence why the access road could be narrowed. Prospective residents would be well aware of the parking arrangements before purchasing, and it was unlikely the applicant would build out the scheme with underground parking unless he was satisfied there was a market for such arrangements.

  vii.        The Chairman noted the underground enclosed parking arrangements included electric charging points, in light of the recent fire at Luton Airport Carpark, he proposed that suitable fire precautions be conditioned.

 viii.        Cllr P Fisher seconded the Chairmans amendment.

The Amendment was carried.

   ix.        Cllr L Paterson proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

     x.        Cllr P Neatherway seconded the motion. 

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

That planning application RV/23/1131 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.