Issue - meetings

CC/19/02337/FUL - St Pancras Court, Flat 10 St Pancras, Chichester, PO19 7LU

Meeting: 08/01/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 5)

5 CC/19/02337/FUL - St Pancras Court, Flat 10 St Pancras, Chichester, PO19 7LU pdf icon PDF 809 KB

Refurbishment works to the existing residential unit

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Miss Bell introduced the application. 

 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet relating to an amended description of the proposal.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Richard Plowman – Parish Council

Miss Tracy Skinner – Applicant

 

During the discussion Members sought clarification regarding whether a green-roof could be introduced, the colour of the corten steel proposed, if issues would be caused regarding accessing the garages once gates had been installed, concerns as to whether the building was acceptable within the conservation area and if lead drips would prevent staining.  Mr Broadway confirmed that corten steel would darken over time. Miss Bell advised that the roof was unlikely to be capable of withstanding the weight of a green-roof, and also reassured members that the orange colour of the steel illustrated by computer representation was from printing the image, rather than an accurate representation.  Miss Bell also confirmed that the garages were set-back and there was sufficient room within the court-yard area.  The lead-drips were used to prevent staining of the timber cladding, but officers did not consider that they were necessary. 

 

In response to a question regarding whether the gates were for security or aesthetic purposes, Mr Whitty confirmed they were for the provision of security, any inconvenience they caused maneuvering in to provided parking spaces was a matter for the applicant.  Further explanation was given with regards to cladding, it was considered that where it might appear incongruous in the middle of a terrace or more intimate street scene, in this case the building was sufficiently distanced and different in design that an alternative approach was appropriate.  Miss Bell advised that within the conservation area there was a view that there was opportunity to improve some of the buildings and this design was considered to achieve that aim. 

 

In response to a question regarding potential glare, Mr Broadway explained that the steel would be delivered having already received oxidization treatment and therefore would have low reflective qualities. 

 

In response to a further question Mr Whitty confirmed that both the cladding and wood burner were a single application and therefore could not be treated separately.  Mr Whitty added that there is currently no policy from central government that the use of  a wood burning flue was unacceptable in principle, on environmental grounds.

 

Mr Wilding arrived just prior to the vote taking place

and therefore abstained from voting.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed with amended description of the proposal as set out on the update sheet.