The Principal Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for 35 units, comprising a mixture of three and four storey buildings, provision of car parking and communal facilities, refuse and cycle stores, associated landscape proposals and formation of a new public square.  The development would provide 100% affordable housing for over 55s, specifically designed to meet requirements of the Council’s waiting list.

The Vice-Chair advised that residents within his ward were excited about the development.  He asked whether the cycle storage would accommodate mobility scooters, and provide a power supply.  Members heard there were 22 bays outlined for scooter parking.

Councillor Jones referred to concerns regarding the height of the building and proximity to an existing care home.  The Officer advised that there was a significant distance between the two sites and the height difference was acceptable.

Councillor Piccolo queried ownership of the alleyway behind the development, and responsibilities regarding fly-tipping.  It was confirmed that the alleyway would be retained by current residents, allowing continued access to their properties.  The responsibility for the alleyway would remain as presently.

Councillor Ojetola queried the level of parking.   He asked whether parking would be restricted and what provision there was for visitors.  The Principal Planner advised there would be an access gate for security purposes which would restrict parking. The Principal Highways Engineer advised that a parking scheme in Calcutta Road was currently under investigation at the request of local residents.  There were also plans to increase off-street parking in Tilbury.  The Vice-Chair interjected that HAPPI developments were designed for wheelchair users, vulnerable residents and it would be surprising if all the residents had cars.

Councillor Hamilton raised the issue of overlooking regarding properties on Toronto Road.  The Principal Planner advised there was a condition for screens to be built to prevent overlooking from the public walkway towards the back of Toronto Road properties that many properties overlooked the communal garden and the properties closest to Toronto Road had south-facing balconies.  It was queried by Members whether trees might be planted to further mitigate, the Principal Planner advised that due to the proximity to the boundary tree-planting would be  difficult, however there were no specific concerns.

The Chair invited a resident, Mr Trew, to the Committee to present his statement of support.

The agent, Marion MacCormick was invited to present her statement of support.

The Chair queried the impact on residents in Toronto Road, such as proximity, overlooking and loss of light.  The Committee heard that the units did not face directly onto the gardens and that there would be screens along walkways to mitigate.  Units were a satisfactory distance from the existing properties and there was negligible impact in terms of loss of light.

Councillor Liddiard agreed that he would be somewhat concerned about overlooking, but the balconies faced Calcutta Road, not Toronto Road.  The development was an ideal location for elderly residents, as it was 100 yards from shops and there were good bus links.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative sought clarification as to the walkway on the northern face of the properties.  It was confirmed that this would be the entry into properties, it would be slightly open but there would be screening.

Councillor Piccolo expressed his view that he might be more concerned if the properties were for families with young children, or teenagers, but given these were specifically for over 55s it was hoped all residents, new and existing, would have respect for their neighbours.

The Chair asked whether there was any requirement for the windows overlooking the communal garden to be screened.  The view was not deemed harmful due to the positioning, however Condition 6 could be amended to be more explicit regarding the proposed windows.

The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.  The Chair put it to the vote.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice and Graham Snell.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions, as per the Officers’ recommendation (subject to amending condition 6 (windows on rear facing elevation) and 11 (access gate to carpark) ).