Two shops in Western Road could be knocked down and rebuilt with 14 flats above and behind.
Plans to demolish the units currently occupied by Card Factory and Cancer Research were first submitted in 2024, but are now being readvertised following tweaks to the design.
These include reducing the number of flats from 16, and increasing the amount of commercial space.
The flats at the back would face onto Clarence Square.
The applicant, Rachel Charitable Trust, is also now asking for exemption from the requirement to provide 20% affordable homes on the basis it would make the scheme unviable.
The original application, written by WSP, says: “The site is currently under-occupied with the upper levels largely vacant and derelict resulting in inefficient use of brownfield, sustainable land, and also the detraction of the appearance of the area.
“The proposed development follows a design-led approach to optimise the site’s capacity whilst intensifying the use of the site which has strong level of accessibility from public transport.
“The proposals will retain the existing ground floor retail use within the new building, whilst delivering much needed homes in a sustainable location.
“The existing retail units extend throughout the entirety of the two buildings, but the upper and basement levels are largely vacant and/or used simply for storage.
“The size of these units means that they create rental and rate level challenges for occupiers which make them sub-optimal.
“During the preparation of the proposals, agent advice has been sought on the extent of the replacement retail space in the development and the proposed two retail units (which could be amalgamated into one larger unit if required) is seen as providing a good level of floorspace for prospective tenants.
“Furthermore, the enhancement of the shopfront on this part of Western Road (including the condition of the building on the upper levels), will improve the condition and environment of the Western Road shopping frontage, enriching the quality, vibrancy and vitality of the high street.”
What about the building next door, that’s vacant and also an abomination of a building. Can that get bulldozer treatment also please
well the owners of that are responsible for their property not the owners of this one!
If the scheme is unviable then it’s unviable! Hopefully the Council will stick to its guns and help reduce the waiting list by insisting on the social housing element.
Those shops are ugly and very out of dat.
They all could do with a re-fern to be honest
Will look good if it goes ahead.
The developer is being strong-armed into providing more commercial space, which will be impossible to let.
Agreed we need to keep an eye on this inane requirement to provide so called “affordable housing”. There is no point in losing developments for its sake – it invariably makes developers reluctant to proceed because it makes things unviable from a profit perspective. Would you rather have nice redevelopment with 14 homes sacrificed for the sake of a couple of affordable units?
How is the developer being strong armed on the commercial footprint when they are responsible for the size of it?
I do agree woth you on the affordible housing element. It may be that the developer is offering a sum in lieu. I don’t know as I’ve not read the actual application – or it may come up as a propsed condition when it reaches the committee.
And I’ve read numerous planning applications where housing providers really don’t want to be managing 2 or 3 flats in a development that they have no control over
Yes, I would, because units that can’t be afforded by locals are practically pointless and do nothing to support the local economy or the housing challenges of this city.
Can’t boot us out now because of new tenant laws in these flats hope are nice and cheap
You are incorrect.
The new law prevents many things such as no fault evictions but there is still provision for evictions with a valid reason and the appropriate notice are given.
So yes you can still be evicted.
Not if you use section 3.56
Soon landlords will pay and tenants will be in charge
Labour! For the many not the few
Which says what because there isn’t a section 3.56 in the Act!
There is a section 56 which prevents bidding wars.
But I reiterate the Act still does allow evictions as long as the proper legal notice and reasons are given.
Am I correct that the “charitable” owners promote only a certain religion or race? Perhaps that is the true reason why they don’t want to provide any social housing element?