Skip to main content

Agenda item

Application 18/00959/FUL - 33-37 High Street, Brentwood. CM14 4RG

Minutes:

Demolition of 35 and 37 High Street Brentwood, the part demolition, part retention of no. 33 and construct of part 3 part 4 storey building comprising five ground floor retail units and 14 no. residential units (8no. 1 bed units; 6no. 2 bed units). Additional construction of five storey building to rear of the site comprising ground floor SME (flexible retail/office) use, and 4no. 2 bed units.

 

Members were advised that the Committee refused a planning

application for a similar development on this site at its meeting

in March 2018 and that the current application proposed a revised

form of development.

 

The site comprised two linked parcels of land, a roughly rectangular plot which covered units 33-37 High Street (plot A), with a ribbon of land extending to William Hunter Way, and a triangular plot to the north (plot B) facing William Hunter Way. Both plots were within the Brentwood town centre and conservation area. The building structures of units 33, 33a and 33b would be retained at ground and first floor level, with internal/external alterations. Units 35 and 37 would be demolished and replaced in their entirety. 

 

Unit 33 would have three storeys including a pitched roof with front facing dormers behind a low parapet. The ground floor would have three retail units, and there would be 3 flats on each of the first and second floors totalling 2 x one bed units and 4 x two bed units - providing a total of 6 residential flats. The total height of the building was 650mm lower than previously proposed.

 

Unit 35 would have four storeys including a pitched roof with front facing dormers behind a parapet. The ground floor would have one retail unit, and there would be 2 x one bed units on each of the three floors above – providing a total of 6 residential flats. The total height of the building was approximately 1290 mm lower than previously proposed.

 

Unit 37 would be three storeys, with a front façade of similar proportions to unit 35 but without the pitched roof. It would have retail use on the ground floor, and 1 x two bed unit on each of the floors above. It would provide in total 2 residential flats. The total height of the building was one storey lower, approximately 3135 mm, than previously proposed.

 

In total, Plot A would retain all five retail units on the ground floor and provide 14 residential units. CGIs submitted with the application (referred to as ‘View points’) show the High Street elevation to have articulated frontages of finely detailed brickwork with fenestration having generous reveals. The other change is to the material colour of Block A, this variation in the finish provided more visual variety to the scheme.  The front elevation had a sympathetic relationship to the massing of its neighbours to each side.

 

The proposal for Plot B was a five-storey building with flexible retail/office use at the ground floor and four floors of residential units above; each residential floor would provide 1 x two-bedroom unit. The ground floor would also include cycle and bin storage. In total the proposal would provide one commercial unit and four residential units above. The height of this building was the same as previously proposed and it would be mostly brick clad facing William Hunter Way, with a part glazed aluminium curtain wall stair tower to its rear elevation rising just above the main body of the building. There was a minimum of windows to its flanks.

 

Dr Gomes – a resident of Culyers Yard -  was in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

Mr Parr – the agent - addressed  the Committee in support of the application.

 

Cllr Chilvers was concerned that residents of Culyers Yard had not been sent  letters by the Planning Department advising them of the proposed development as was customary in Brentwood although not a statutory requirement and MOVED and Cllr Mynott SECONDED that consideration of the application be DEFERRED for further consultation.

 

The Chair agreed to DEFER the application accordingly.

Supporting documents: