Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED to appoint Councillor Cat Arnold as Planning Committee Vice-Chair for the 2015-16 municipal year.

Councillor Gul Khan (personal)

Councillor Toby Neal (work commitments)

No declarations of interests were made.

Last meeting held on 22 April 2015 (for confirmation)

The Committee confirmed the minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2015 as a correct record and they were signed by the Chair.

Further to minute 74 dated 18 March 2015, Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced a report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration, on application 13/02877/PFUL3, submitted by Hunter Page Planning on behalf of Meadow Lane Regeneration Limited and Canal and River Trust, for the demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to form 95 dwellings, 385sq/mt of retail and cafe floorspace (Class A1/A3), new vehicular access and parking, new waterfront pedestrian and cycle path and public open space.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application at its March 2015 meeting to allow further discussion with the applicant about materials and design details of the building, and to request CGIs showing views of the site from Trent Bridge.

Mr Poole advised that further work had been carried out on the architectural style of the buildings, and that the development represented a bold statement of confidence, providing a strong, simple tone-setting style for the Waterfront area. Mr Poole also advised that there were some similarities with the architectural approach that has been approved for the Trent Basin development.

During discussion, the following comments were made by members of the Committee:

(a)  several Councillors welcomed the ‘place-making’ elements of the scheme, including the shared spaces, pedestrian access, cycle lanes and riverside paths; the precedent set by the scheme’s clean, simple, modern design; there was strong support in principle for placing student accommodation on the site, and for the communal accommodation available for occupants;

(b)  several Councillors also welcomed the scheme’s scale and ambition, and the tone it set for the future development of Meadow Lane and regeneration of the wider area;

(c)  Councillors commended the low-level housing element of the scheme and expressed the view that the 3 blocks nearest to Trent Bridge benefited from a softer, curved profile;

(d)  the nearest block to Trent Bridge benefited from a sympathetic roof treatment, and Councillors wished to see the remaining blocks similarly enhanced;

(e)  concern was expressed about the angular ‘brutalist’ nature of the other 2 blocks, and the scheme’s general lack of decoration;

(f)  one Councillor expressed the view that brickwork was ‘overpowering’.

In response, Mr Paul Seddon, Head of Development Management and Regeneration, advised against over-relying on CGI images alone to capture the final ‘look’ of the scheme. He also proposed discussing further the Committee’s suggestions and concerns with the developer.

RESOLVED

(1)  to grant planning permission for the reasons set out in the  report, subject to:

(a)   The receipt of satisfactory amended plans showing changes to the elevations of the two apartment blocks at the northern end of the River Trent frontage, such details to be agreed in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition representative;

(b)   prior completion of a Section 106 planning obligation which shall include:

(i) A financial contribution of £83,461 towards primary places within the

Greenfields Primary catchment area;

(ii) The provision of travel information packs for each dwelling, together with funding for the provision of initial Kangaroo travel passes on request (equating to a maximum financial value of £52,317);

(iii) A financial contribution of £10,000 towards the making, advertising and confirming (if appropriate) of a traffic regulation order to control parking within the development;

(iv) The on-going management and maintenance of areas of open space within the development;

(v) Permission to use the foot/cycle path provided along the riverside;

(vi) Where necessary, provision to ensure that development of adjacent land is not prejudiced;

(vii) The grant of a licence to allow the future construction of a pedestrian bridge link over the Tinkers Leen;

(viii) Subject to a further viability appraisal, a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing;

(c)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report;

(d)  delegate authority to determine the final details of  the terms of the planning obligation  to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration;

(d)  delegate authority to determine the final details of the conditions of planning permission to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration (and, where those details relate to the River Trent frontages, to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair, Opposition representative and Ward Councillors;

(2)   that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 has been  complied with, in that the planning obligation sought is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

(3)    that the section 106 obligation(s) sought would not exceed the permissible number of obligations according to the Regulation 123 (3) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced a report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration, on application 15/00490POUT, submitted by Ryder Architecture on behalf of Carillion Construction Ltd for a new school, sports hall and associated development and demolition of existing school buildings.

The Committee also considered additional information contained in an update sheet, copies of which were placed round the table and which had been published subsequent to the agenda.

Mr Poole explained that a petition of concern had been raised about the proximity of the sports hall to nearby properties. The Environment Agency had also withdrawn their objection, following receipt of amended plans, subject to conditions detailed in the update sheet

During discussion, the following comments were made:

(a)  Councillors agreed that there was a strong local need for the new school and sports hall;

(b)  there was consensus that the design was unremarkable, but it was also recognised that the buildings were being delivered within very tight financial constraints, with no additional resource available to make the buildings appear more iconic;

(c)  several Councillors considered the buildings to be unwelcoming for children, but the opinion was also expressed that the new school and sports hall feel will ‘soften’  with use;

(d)  a Councillor noted the requirement for a community use agreement to set access arrangements for the site’s sports facilities outside school hours and emphasised the importance that such an agreement be four way (between Sport England, the school, the Council and the local community and that it contained a mechanism to enable the concerns of local residents regarding disturbance arising from community use to be picked up and acted on. Mr Poole advised that the school would be encouraged to engage with the local community in the preparation of the agreement.  .

RESOLVED to

(1)  grant planning permission subject to the indicative conditions listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report, and to 2 additional conditions (relating to a surface water drainage scheme and contamination) listed in the update sheet;

(2)  delegate authority to determine the final details of the conditions to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration.