Agenda item

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, introduced application 17/01058/PFUL3 by Miss Alice Weston on behalf of Mr Dom Rice, for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 35 apartments with commercial floor space (Use Class A2 and B1) on the ground floor. The application is brought to Planning Committee because this is a major development on a prominent site where there are important design and heritage considerations. An update sheet was circulated in a supplementary agenda. Rob highlighted the following points:

(a)  the site in question is currently in a very poor state, as it has suffered fire damage twice in recent years;

(b)  the site is a prime site in terms of vehicles accessing the city centre, and is in a very prominent location;

(c)  the proposals are for a residential scheme with 35 studio apartments. The applicants have indicated that apartments will not be marketed to students, due to the high design specifications they are aimed more towards attracting post graduates and young professionals;

(d)  the design is respectful of the heritage context, and replicates the adjoining terrace in terms of depth, scale, and height. The eastern side of the site has a smaller building in keeping with what existed there before and in keeping with the height of adjacent buildings on the eastern side of the development;

(e)  there will be commercial units on the ground floor, and an open access core between the buildings. There has been ongoing discussion regarding the final design of this entrance and access core, which it is proposed will be delegated to colleagues;

(f)  the recess between the two buildings contains a lift core. This is unusual for a three storey building, but reflects the type of professional tenant the developer is hoping to attract. The final design of this is proposed to be delegated to colleagues;

(g)  the attention to detail on the window design is a strong feature of the development. At the rear there will be dormer windows to bring the scale in line with the neighbouring buildings.

There followed a number of questions and comments from the Committee, and further information on the development in response:

(h)  the Committee felt that the site is in great need of development, as it is currently in a state of disrepair and neglect. It was felt that there is good continuity with the neighbouring terraced buildings, and that the smaller building to the east of the development fits in well with the neighbouring buildings on that side of the development. The smaller building will use white brick, rather than render;

(i)  some members of the Committee felt that although the main building fit in well with the neighbouring terraces, some additional details such as chimneys, and window lintels, would add some interest to the building;

(j)  there were mixed opinions regarding the external lift core, with final detail to be agreed by colleagues;

(k)  the Section 106 contribution is subject to a financial viability  assessment, similar to other applications. This process will conclude shortly, with the final Section 106 contribution amount to be delegated to colleagues in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair, Vice-Chair and opposition spokesperson;

(l)  there is an indication that the ground floor commercial units will be taken by the developers as their lettings office;

(m)  no on-site parking will be provided. Due to the location of the site on a busy junction, any access for vehicles would have been difficult and dangerous. As the apartments are studio apartments near to the city centre, and well served by public transport, the need for parking is not as pressing as it might be in other locations;

(n)  there is a history in the area of rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour, and concern was raised regarding the gap between the buildings on the site containing the entrance. The Committee were reassured that this would be addressed as part of the outstanding discussions regarding the decision of this element of the scheme, and that access to the space to the rear of the buildings would be available for residents only;

(o)  the Committee requested clarification on how large an area has to be to be considered as a cave, and how any caves found will be reported. Reassurance was given that the appropriate guidance would be sought from the Council’s archaeologist.

RESOLVED:

(1)  to grant planning permission:

(a)  subject to prior completion of a planning obligation, the power to determine the final details of the obligation are delegated to the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chair, Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesperson, which shall include:

(i)  a financial contribution towards off-site public open space;

(ii)  a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing;

(b)  subject to the conclusions of the District Valuer’s independent assessment of the developer’s viability appraisal as to whether the whole or part of the policy compliant section 106 contributions should be required;

(c)  subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those which are included within the draft decision notice at the end of the report and in the update sheet and to include or amend an existing a condition regarding approval of the window surround detailing;

(d)  that the power to determine the final details of the conditions is delegated to the Chief Planner;

(2)  that Councillors are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with, in that the planning obligation sought is:

(a)  necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b)  directly related to the development;

(c)  fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development;

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