Agenda and minutes

Councillor Sam Harris (unwell)

None.

Of the meeting held on 18 December 2024, for confirmation.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025, were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented planning application 22/00735/PFUL3 by PMI Developments Ltd and Harcourt Land and Development, for planning permission

to demolish the current structure, clear the site, and construct a purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) scheme, as detailed in the report.

Highlighted points included:

a)  The application is brought to Committee because planning obligations are proposed

to be waived on viability grounds;

b)  The scheme comprises of a ground floor plus 3, 5, 6 and 9 storey building including ancillary facilities, with all associated works including landscaping, drainage, access and engineering;

c)  There remains an on-going need for student accommodation, and the scheme would provide 247 units, of 37 cluster flats and 50 individual studio flats, with shared leisure and amenity space, including bicycle storage;

d)  A presentation provided a map of the area, and aerial view of the site in context with the surrounding properties, current street view photographs taken from different angles, computer-generated images of how the final development will appear at street level from a number of different vantage points, and floor plans;

e)  This site is within a former industrial area, which is the subject of recent development, including a number of other PBSA schemes. A description of the site and surrounding buildings is set out in the report;

f)  The site is within the area subject to the Eastside Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and close to the Grade II listed ‘Barton Bus Garage’;

g)  Waste and recycling bin storage has been allocated and is considered adequate;

h)  Since the initial application, the design has changed significantly and is visually much improved, as illustrated by the computer generated images (CGI) of the different iterations, including a significant reduction in height to one which officers have determined is now appropriately comparable to the height of buildings within the area;

i)  Objections raised by neighbouring residents and the Civic Society are summarised in the report, along with responses from consultees who did not raise objections;

j)  Following further consultation with the Local Flood Planning Officer, planning condition 18 has been removed, as detailed in the update sheet;

k)  The scheme has been subject to a challenge on viability grounds which indicates that the developer will be unable to meet any S106 planning obligations. The applicant’s viability appraisal has been robustly assessed by an independent assessor, also including the engagement of a Quantity Surveyor to assess the construction costs. It has been concluded that the waiving of all planning obligations is justified in this case.

Questions from members were responded to as follows:

l)  The viability assessment was not carried out in relation to the larger, initial iteration but only once there was a broad support from officers for the scale of the development, so there is no information regarding the viability of the original, much taller scheme;

m)  The provision of bird and bat boxes, as proposed by the Biodiversity Officer, is to be secured as a conditional requirement of the scheme;

n)  The S106 obligation includes a requirement for the scheme to be subject to a further viability assessment if not commenced within 2 years;

o)  The current position with the adjacent, semi-derelict Bartons Bus Garage is complex, but members are assured that Planning Officers continue to seek an improvement in its condition, and recently achieved the removal of the unsightly scaffolding;

p)  Further details of the energy efficiency of the building and the number of air heat source pumps are not available at this stage, and will also be subject to Building Regulations approval;

q)  The design has demonstrated adaptability for alternative residential occupancy, the sustainability measures associated with which would be subject to further Building Regulations approval at that time.

Members comments included:

r)  The loss of planning obligations to fund local amenities is disappointing, especially as there are known social pressures, including on local GP surgeries in the immediate area;

s)  The increasing global cost pressures which also impact on developers are recognised but the provision of a contribution towards the planning obligations would be appreciated;

t)  The City needs more PBSA to ensure that family housing is not impacted by student occupation. The application, especially with its much-improved design, is welcomed;

u)  The elegance and quality of the current design is appreciated and welcomed.

Resolved:

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

(i)  prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

-   a student management plan and restriction on occupants keeping private vehicles within the City;

-   a Viability Re-appraisal review mechanism should development not be commenced within 2 years of the issue of planning permission with power delegated to the Director of Planning and Transport to allocate any subsequent monies available as he sees fit between affordable housing, and public open space, and a construction phase contribution up to the policy compliant level.

-    Employment and Skills Recruitment Targets at Construction phase;

(ii)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notices at the end of the report and included in the ‘update sheet’;

2)  for the power to determine the final details of the conditions of planning permission to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Transport;

3)  to note that the Committee are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with, in that the planning obligations ordinarily sought, if there were not viability grounds for waiving them, are (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, (b) directly related to the development and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Jennifer Curry, Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented planning application 21/01724/POUT by Jonathan Barlow on behalf of M.Roshan, D.Barlow, and E.Barlow, for outline planning permission to erect 1 dwelling following the demolition of the existing outbuildings (details of layout, scale, appearance and access applied for, with landscaping a subsequent reserved matter).

Highlighted points, including responses to members’ questions, included:

a)  The application is brought to Committee because it has generated significant public interest that is contrary to planning officer recommendation;

b)  A presentation included a map of the area, an aerial view of the site in context with the surrounding properties and adjacent park, and elevations and floorplans of the proposed dwelling;

c)  The application has changed substantially since the initial submission, with only one property now proposed (originally two);

d)  A primary ground for objection focuses on ownership and rights of way issues associated with the access track, which are not within the remit of the Committee and would need to be addressed by the applicant as a separate legal matter;

e)  The building will be set off from the property boundaries and no windows will overlook the adjacent property;

f)  The inclusion of a quality boundary treatment can be addressed by condition;

g)  The type of glazing for the windows overlooking the park is not considered to be a material planning consideration;

h)  There is reference to a sustainability condition for the development, but no specific details are currently available at this outline planning application stage.

Resolved

1)  to grant outline planning permission subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report;

2)  for the power to determine the final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Transport.