Agenda item

Proposal

Amendment to WA/2016/0268 for amendments to building named 'D15' (as amended by plans received 10/04/2019).

Recommendation

That, the Non-Material Amendment Application be APPROVED.

Proposal

Amendment to WA/2016/0268 for amendments to building named 'D15' (as amended by plans received 10/04/2019).

The Chairman introduced the officers present.

The case officer presented the history of the planning permission for the East Street development and the subsequent Non Material Amendment (NMA) relating to the approved drawing numbers. The current NMA proposed a relatively minor amendment to the position of building D15 within the scheme, such that the building would move away south and west from the boundary on the north and east, by less than 1m. There were no significant changes proposed to the elevations.

In the context of the overall scheme, this was considered to be a Non Material Amendment: there were no material changes to neighbouring amenity and visual amenity; no changes to car parking or cycle parking spaces; a slight increase, or no change, to the floor area of the units within D15; and no change to the highways.

Thames Valley Housing had raised no objections to the proposal, and the County Highway Authority had also raised no objection. In particular they had confirmed that there continued to be safe access for all vehicles including articulated vehicles, and swept-path analysis confirmed that vehicles would not over-run the footpath. This part of the highway was not part of a bus route.

Officers had considered the proposal in the context of the cumulative impact of previous NMAs, and were satisfied that this was not a material amendment to the scheme. There was no prescribed definition of an NMA, and the general legal principle was that it was an amendment that was not material within the context of the overall permission. Given the sensitivity of the scheme, the NMA had been brought to the JPC to ensure transparency of decision-making.

Cllr Hyman referred to the report that he had circulated to committee members and officers earlier in the day, which set out his serious concerns in relation to the proposal and the impact on the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the building. He was not convinced that vehicles would not over-run the foot paths; his understanding was that this was a proposed bus route; and he did not feel that moving a substantial building could be considered ‘non material’.

In contrast, the rest of the Committee members were largely satisfied that the proposal was non-material, but asked to see the swept-path analysis for vehicles. The case officer displayed the drawings which showed that there was sufficient room for a variety of vehicles of different sizes to navigate the perimeter road without over-running the footpath. Some Committee members were disappointed that the size of the residential units still would not meet the national technical space standards, but officers pointed out that the original permission dated back to 2008 and the standards were much more recent; it was not possible to require an increase in the size of units.

The Chairman moved the recommendation, that the NMA be consented, which was approved by 17 votes in support, 4 votes against, and no abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED that the Non-Material Amendment Application be APPROVED.