Agenda item

This was an application to grant full planning permission for the demolition of the existing snooker centre and erection of 70 no. apartments with associated amenity space and parking at the site of the former Eden Complex, Telford Snooker Centre, Canongate, Oakengates, Telford.

Oakengates Town Council had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee and it was also before Committee due to a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions.

Councillor S Reynolds spoke on behalf of Oakengates Town Council who supported the regeneration of the brownfield site but raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment, adverse impact of an overbearing and visible development which would permanently dominate the local landscape, design criteria was not in keeping with the street scene, lack of car parking, highway safety, impact on the commercial units, access and egress, privacy and overlooking, damage to commercial units by ground works, drainage and the additional loading of the system and the unsuitable weight of the development on a medium risk coal mining area.

The Planning Officer confirmed that with regard to overdevelopment, access, design and character there were no technical objections or they could be dealt with by condition.  There was an extant outline permission which was broadly in line with the application before Members except for the height which was due to viability constraint but sat at a lower floor level than the highway.   In relation to the under provision of car parking, the development was in a sustainable location and in close proximity to alternative modes of transport.  A bicycle voucher scheme was to be secured by means of a s.106 and Management Plan in order to mitigate the shortfall in car parking and also to promote exercise during the covid pandemic and this was a unique feature to the development.  There were no on-site contributions or affordable housing due to the viability of the scheme.  With regard to the loss of the community facility, the business could not be operated profitably and there had been a further impact since covid.  Due to the boundary treatments and the landscape treatments, there would be no detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

During the debate, some Members although happy to see this site being developed they raised concerns regarding density, proximity to the A442, noise, car parking, limited funding put aside for the cycle scheme and the scheme may exclude people with mobility issues and those with young families, overdevelopment, cladding, design standards and the impact on the local community.  Other Members felt that 1 bedroom developments were needed and it should be supported.

The Planning officer confirmed that people were keen to see a development on the site but that its main constraint was the abnormal costs which resulted in viability and density issues and 70 units was the lowest that could be achieved on the site and that this had meant car parking reductions.  New and innovative ideas came forward and this took account of the sustainability of its location with some of the units having available parking.  Sufficient funds would be secured for the cycle scheme through a s.106 and thereafter by a management plan.  The outline permission established the principles for residential units and outlined that this would need to accord with conditions moving forward.  With regard to cladding the development would need to meet building regulation standards.

Upon being put to the vote it was by a majority:

RESOLVED – that the application be refused.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager summarised that this was a brownfield site but it has its constraints.  There was a previous approval on the site for a high rise development and brought forward an active measure for transport.  Due to viability the application has limited car parking but officer tried to bring forward a different form of accommodation to achieve an appropriate development.  Technical solutions such as appropriate glazing, trickle vents could be sought and there had been previous development near to the M54 motorway and the A442 and it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on air and noise pollution.  With regard to access on the site highways had no objections to the previous outline consent.

The Legal Advisor explained it would be difficult to sustain a refusal if the refusal of the application went to public inquiry.  Technical advisors confirmed that the development was acceptable subject to conditions and a previous permission had been granted and highways had not objected to the original proposal, but it was up to Members to take their own view.

Some members felt that reasons for objections were that it did not meet parking standards laid down in the approved local plan, the effect on the amenity and surrounding area it would overshadow Commercial Way and the whole historic Town Centre and the amenity of Oakengates and it did not meet access and visibility standards.

The Area Planning Officer advised Members that stepping of the development had been used to reduce the visual prominence.

The Chair advised Members that a refusal would be difficult to defend if it went to public inquiry and asked if Members would still like to continue with the refusal.  Councillor Mehta asked that he change his vote having re-read the reports. 

A motion was put forward that the original vote be retaken which was proposed and seconded.

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:-

RESOLVED – that the original vote be re-taken.

The legal advisor re-took the vote on the recommendations in the report and upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:

a)    The applicant/landowners entering into a s.106 Agreement with the Local Planning Authority, with terms to be agreed by the Development Management Service Delivery Manager, relating to:

i)             Contribution of £25,000 towards a resident bicycle voucher scheme, and;

ii)            A long-Term Management Plan for the resident bicycle voucher scheme.

b)     The conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).