options for reducing the accommodation at Blocks 1, 3 and 7 in Scheme B would unbalance the composition of the individual buildings concerned and unacceptably compromise the designs. For that reason, I endorse the option that would bring forward 71 units

I share some of the concerns about internal space standards, legibility and the inconvenience of parking arrangements for the occupiers of Block 7. However, in the context of the design merits of the scheme as a whole, such shortcomings are overcome by the overall quality and merits of the schemes, which would generally provide good quality accommodation.

On layout I conclude that Scheme B would achieve a good balance of openness and built development. There would be sufficient high quality, open and supervised space about buildings for future residents to enjoy, without feeling hemmed in or overshadowed. The scheme would comply with the Government’s recent response to concerns about the treatment of previously developed land.

The density, style of architecture and form of accommodation may
be very different to the pattern of development or buildings on Fairlie Gardens, but Scheme B would similarly provide a comfortable, attractive and safe environment for future residents, with the added advantage of increasing the Borough’s stock of affordable homes.

It has to be said that both schemes would radically alter the character of the land through removal of trees and vegetation within the body of the site. Many of the trees likely to be removed are self seeding or in poor condition, but valued by local people. The losses and changes would be compensated to a large extent by the comprehensive replacement planting scheme and management plan proposed for Scheme A, and potentially replicated in Scheme B.

In the context of the marked visual and physical changes that would occur on the Tyson Road frontage, I consider that the effects of stepping Blocks 8 and 9 forward of the established building line are overstated. In any case, there is townscape logic to the proposed infringement, insofar as the two blocks would mark the entrance to the development, and in so doing would provide natural points of surveillance.

Taken overall, I consider that both schemes demonstrate that a development of such unabashedly modern themes and concept has the capacity to relate well to the immediate and wider surroundings without impacting adversely on the character or appearance of the area.