Issue - meetings

Councillor David Trimble, Ward Councillor for Dunkirk and Lenton Ward spoke for five minutes in opposition to the application stating the following. While he recognised that 55,000 students needed to be housed in Nottingham many of the streets in his ward were already highly populated with student properties. This brings problems such as antisocial behaviour, particularly at the weekends. By increasing the amount of student accommodation this application, if approved, would breach the Council’s Building Balanced Communities policy. He accepted the need to bring the building back into use and its use as a pub but not the intensity of the development or the proximity to neighbouring properties. He expressed concern about the lack of parking which was likely to exacerbate existing parking problems in the ward. Councillor Trimble then took no further part in the meeting while the Committee discussed and voted on the item.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, then introduced application 18/01082/PFUL3 by Leonard Design Architects on behalf of Mr Sam Burt for planning permission for refurbishment and external alterations to the existing public house on the ground floor, change of use of the upper 2 floors to 2 student cluster apartments, conversion of the existing loft space to 6 student studios and erection of a 3 storey extension to the rear of the property consisting of 19 student studios (in total 38 student beds). The application was brought to the Committee because it relates to a major development on a prominent site, where there are important land use considerations. Ward Councillors had also objected to the proposal.

Rob Percival presented the application to the committee highlighting the following points:

(a)  the application concerns the long vacant Grove Hotel which stands on the corner of Abbey Street and Grove Road. Terraced properties sit to the southwest of the property on Grove Road. The application has the prime entrance point on the busier Abbey Street, includes a bike store and has an access point for waste storage and the pub’s cellar on Grove Road. The upper floor would have a central access core with accommodation surrounding;

(b)  the redevelopment will smarten up the existing building. The new build extension sits to the less pleasant rear of the existing building and has been designed in response to its surroundings. It steps down from the existing building and effort has been made to safeguard the privacy of adjoining properties;

(c)  the density of the student accommodation in the area has been addressed within the report. The application is in accordance with the Building Balanced Communities policy as there is not a rigid prohibition of any student accommodation being approved. While many student HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation) applications are refused, applications can be approved in appropriate areas, such as this location on a main road, where the environment is less conducive to family housing.

Following questions and comments from the Committee, the following additional information was provided:

(a)  no parking provision had been included in the application for either residents or for drop off/ pick up and therefore a condition was recommended with regard to drop off an pick up arrangements. It was intended that drop offs and deliveries would take place on Grove Road. The adjacent streets were generally subject to Residents’ Parking Schemes;

(d)  the design of the extension has significant regard to the privacy of the adjoining property with the windows angled away in order to avoid overlooking.

Councillors expressed the following concerns in relation to the application:

(e)  the intensity of the development, particularly the impact intensive student accommodation would have on an already popular area for student residences and concern that the development was not in accordance with the Building Balanced Communities policy;

(f)  the lack of parking or room for pick ups and drop offs at the start and end of term, deliveries and taxis in the application and the impact this would have on parking and traffic on the surrounding streets;

(g)  the design of the extension, including the scale and the impact on the adjoining property.

RESOLVED to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

(1)  the proposal would exacerbate the concentration of students in an area of overconcentration which is in conflict with Building Balanced Communities policy;

(2)  concern regarding the design of the extension, in particular the scale, the intensity, and the impact on adjacent property;

(3)  concern that there is no parking for the dropping off and picking up of residents, taxis, deliveries, and servicing and the impact this will have on parking and traffic in the area.