Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 23rd November, 2022 2.30 pm

Venue: Ground Floor Committee Room - Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham, NG2 3NG. View directions

Contact: Catherine Ziane-Pryor  Governance Officer

No. Item


Apologies for Absence


Councillor Corral Jenkins (Councillor Jawaid Khalil substituting but not in attendance)

Councillor Sally Longford – personal

Councillor Cate Woodward – personal

Councillor Kevin Clark - work commitments

Councillor AJ Matsiko – personal

Councillor Toby Neal - other council business



Declarations of Interests





Of the meeting held on 19 October 2022 (for confirmation)


The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2022 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.



The Boots Co Plc Thane Road Nottingham NG2 3AA pdf icon PDF 1 MB


Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented application 21/01729/PRES4, by Grace Machin Planning & Property on behalf of Ilke Homes Land Limited, requesting approval of reserved matters (access, landscaping, layout, scale, appearance) - 207 no. dwellings with associated access, car parking, public open space and landscaping.


Rob Percival delivered a presentation which included aerial views of the current site looking East, a plan of the outline application, which identifies spinal road through the proposed estate, including a view of the development plots.


The following points were highlighted:


a)  this site falls within both Nottingham City and Broxtowe Borough Council planning areas and identical applications have been submitted to both planning authorities. Planning officers have been working with planning colleagues at Broxtowe Borough Council to form a co-ordinated view to the overall development;


b)  the total site is proposed to consist of 604 units, 207 of which are within the City boundary, 96 of which will be houses and 111 will be apartments;


c)  dwellings will be of an off-site modular construction which supports sustainability and enhances the speed of development. It is proposed that the development will be delivered within a single phase;


d)  existing Boots buildings of historical interest have been referenced in the architecture of the three apartment blocks with white and turquoise ceramic finish;


e)  the proposal includes an interesting use of materials, including a brick slip system which easily enables a variety of colours to be used;


f)  outline planning permission has already been approved, and so the focus for the committee is on the design and appearance of the proposal;


g)  the proposal includes a generous proportion of open space along South side of the site bordering the canal, with three formal play areas and green fingers of open space. The presentation included a computer-generated image (CGI) of the link bridge crossing the canal;


h)  following consultations very few representations have been received, but those which were concerned the sustainability of the public cycle/footpath which runs along the side of the site, which aims to be fully accessible for cyclists and pedestrians;


i)  sustainability was covered within the outline planning permission, and it should be noted that all construction will meet the new building regulation standards;


Members’ questions were responded to as follows:


j)  with regard to the apartment blocks, there is no intention to slavishly reproduce the design of the original Boots heritage buildings, but to provide a contemporary style which includes design references such as a strong cornice and banding details between the floors;


k)  the longevity of the rendering is dependent on the render quality and design, including the appropriate use of drip channels. Rendering is used sparingly on this scheme but works well providing a variety of materials and colour. Specification of the appropriate quality can be included within the conditions to ensure quality of finish is retained long-term;


l)  further details are required by the conditions with regard to the layout and management of the open public space next to the canal. Members should be assured that a management company is required for the site.

Members of the committee commented as follows;


m)  the intention of referencing of the existing buildings of interest on site is welcomed for the apartment blocks, but there appears to be very little similarity with the design;


n)  any rendering must be of a good quality to ensuring longevity, otherwise it’s appearance will rapidly deteriorate and require ongoing maintenance;


o)  off-site modular construction is welcomed, as is the overall design which appears attractive and well thought out.


Resolved to grant reserved matters approval subject to the indicative conditions listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report.



Former Nottingham College Clarendon Pelham Avenue Nottingham pdf icon PDF 1 MB


Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, presented application 22/00544/PFUL3 made by Pegasus Group on behalf of Bowmer and Kirkland & Department for Education, for planning permission for a New Free School and Associated Works.


Martin Poole delivered a brief presentation providing the street plan of the site, an aerial view of the site prior to demolition of the previous college buildings which were of no great architectural merit.


The following points were highlighted:


a)  the application was initially proposed to be of modular construction, but following further discussions, the proposals have been rewritten and now consist of two blocks for teaching and sports;


b)  aerial CGIs of the proposed design from different angles were included in the presentation and elevation and sectional plans of the proposed building illustrate split level access across the sites from 3 to 4 levels;


c)  it is anticipated that the new secondary school will cater for 1,200 pupils between 11 and 16 years of age, which is much-needed within the city;


d)  Further information and conditions are included within the update sheet;


e)  It is recognised that school will fall short of the ideal on-site requirements for a school of this size, but it has been a huge challenge to acquire a site large enough, and so the school will seek to utilise existing green space and sports sites elsewhere. Planning officers are satisfied that as a result the proposal is acceptable in planning terms;


f)  solar panels are included on the building roof and whilst there is a net zero carbon ambition for the site, this is yet to be achieved, but work is ongoing;


g)  details of the brick slip are still under discussion, but is anticipated that the main feature will use a grey blue a brick at the base of the building and redbrick for the upper levels;


h)  whilst the college will front onto Pelham Avenue, there is no intention for the college to have direct access onto Mansfield Road. Highways colleagues of carefully considered the proposal and provided guidance and advice to ensure good road safety, without any further highways features or arrangements. Conditions include the requirement of a travel plan;


i)  the report provides a summary of representations, including from the Civic Society, some of which reference boundary details which can be addressed within the conditions;


j)  The external colour of the buildings needs to be the right tone and texture and of suitable quality. It is possible that the darker brick has more warmth to it, and that three types of brick colour all work together;


k)  the play-space within the site is significantly smaller than a school of this size would  usually require, but space is a challenge within the city and compromises have had to be made. Some activities can be adequately provided at City Council and partner sites, but not during playtimes. It is the developers decision to include a larger car parking space to meet their operational requirements, which relates to management issues of the school, in preference to a larger ‘play’ space;


l)  the update sheet makes reference to the net zero carbon target and whilst much is done to achieve this, it is not possible for the school to generate all of its own power. However, the level of sustainable energy generation, insulation and sustainability is good;


m)  the school will have an impact on the surrounding area, as would any other development, but the impact challenges are understood, have been considered by experts who have provided advice, and where feasibly possible action is proposed to address concerns. However, it is difficult to find suitable sites within the city, particularly in an area where school places are required.


Members’ questions were responded to as follows:


n)  Lisa Guest, Principal Highways Officer, assured members of the committee, that the Highways Department had assessed potential additional associated traffic flow, which would be likely to increase slightly, but as the children are of an age to travel to and from school without parental supervision, it is anticipated that the majority of parents would not drive the children to the school gates. Installation of barriers on Pelham Avenue had been considered and discounted due to the resulting pinch point which would be difficult to effectively manage. Highways colleagues will continue to seek longer term solutions;


o)  the requirement of a travel plan to encourage pupils to utilise public transport/park and rides, is included within the conditions and has worked well in other areas of the city. With school travel plans, it is the school that will liaise with the bus companies regarding start and finish time capacity and behaviour of pupils whilst travelling. Following an assessment, Highways Officers do not feel that any additional traffic measures, such as additional traffic lights, can be justified. Although there may be potential space with all school site which can be adapted to support some of the traffic/pupil and access concerns, this is not an element which can be demanded within the planning permission requirements. Planning colleagues are satisfied that the school has adequately responded within its capability;


p)  some trees on site have already been removed due to the building space requirements but replacement planting will be undertaken and so is considered acceptable;


q)  there is no intention for the design and school to reflect that of the surrounding buildings. Discussions have taken place with the developer, including which brick colour would be more appropriate for a development bordering conservation areas, but brick slip is quick to erect and provides a variety of texture and colour. It needs to be remembered the developer is working within a budget. Officers have pushed design preferences as far as they can and there is concern that if there is any further delay, this could jeopardise the development;


r)  the windows on the sports hall has been have been measured to ensure the best possible light is made available for this type of use;


s)  there are no internal CGIs available as the internal quality of space is largely for the school to determine;


t)  a school steering group of interest parties along with school governors could be proposed as a means to address issues and concerns as they arise with regard to travel


Members’ comments included:


u)  Pelham Avenue has always been quiet and this development will result in a significant increase in traffic, which is a concern to local residents and ward councillors;


v)  road safety concerns have not been fully addressed, particularly with regard to Mansfield Road, which is very busy. For the amount of pupils anticipated to attend, longer term solutions need to be sought, including potentially with bus operators regarding the siting of bus stops and the busy passenger ‘pinch points’ such as the end of the school day;


w)  it’s recognised that CGI’s are not always the best representation and only provided as an indication, but the building appears to dark, even with the variation of brick pattern;


x)  this site is very near to a very busy road which is one of the main entrances to the city. Traffic management is important to minimise obstruction and blockages caused by school associated traffic;


y)  consideration should be given to what could be provided in the greater surrounding area to help alleviate any traffic issues, such as pinch points and parking restrictions;


z)  concerns around a large number of pupils at bus stops needs to be addressed as this can be intimidating and overwhelming for other passengers and is a safety issue too. An additional gated entrance behind which pupils could wait until the bus arrives would be beneficial;


aa)  the design of the building is to ‘blocky’ and the sports hall resembles a prison wall;


bb)  the design is very brutal but doesn’t need to be quite so square. It’s not in keeping with the rest of the area;


cc)  ward councillors and councillors from neighbouring wards should be consulted on the travel plan, including the bus stop concerns, independent of the Planning Committee.


Councillors Leslie Ayoola and Azad Choudhry requested that their abstention from voting is recorded.




1)  to grant permission subject to conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report and included in the update sheet;


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


At the request of committee members there was a short comfort adjournment from 15:53-16:02



1 Wallett Street Nottingham NG2 3EL pdf icon PDF 1 MB


Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented application 19/02552/PFUL3 by Arkwright Property Co Ltd for planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of residential accommodation.


Rob Percival delivered a brief presentation, which included plans of the site, aerial views of the current site, and computer-generated images of the completed development from different angles;


The following points were highlighted and members’ questions responded to:


a)  this development is part of the South Regeneration Zone, and proposes provision of 141 one and two bed apartments with ground floor parking;


b)  Planning Officers believe that the scheme will enhance the area as there is no current frontage onto Meadows Way, and note that the proposal is now for seven stories in total, and not eight as per the report;


c)  the ground floor flats will have direct street access with small defensive boundary wall;


d)  a first floor courtyard deck covers over the ground floor parking;


e)  the south side of the building steps down in height and terraces will be included;


f)  windows will be recessed with details of openings and a variation of steps and brick texture. There is a different brick colour on the base level and top floor to define different levels from those of neighbouring buildings;


g)  construction is predominantly brick but with metal cladding between the blocks as the levels drop;


h)  very few representations have been received. The Civic Society suggested the retention of one original buildings. This has since been considered but not found to be of any significance and would limit the development of the site, so the suggestion has been discounted;


i)  the upgraded building regulations will apply to this development;


j)  an arborist has examined the trees on the site which have not been found to be of any significance;


k)  Solar panels are proposed for the roof, along with some greenery, resulting in a net gain to biodiversity;


l)  the planning obligation for section 106 funding was challenged by the developer and so the proposal was subject to independent assessment. This resulted in reduced planning obligation contribution, as set out in the report;


m)  the update sheet provides new and revised conditions and an update on addressing concerns which had previously been raised;


n)  Highways colleagues have considered the proposals and do not have any concerns other than increasing pedestrian visibility for the access road. It’s not believed that the ground floor flats either side of the entrance to the car park require any protection, such as barriers, as the width of the entrance is adequate and this is a low traffic volume area, with the speed limit set 20 mph;


o)  Road Safety colleagues have considered the lower-level boundary treatments, which are currently shown as banked slopes, and do not consider them an issue as the slope is less than a 6’. In addition, there are a number of trees proposed to be planted along the boundary and in front of the properties and therefore it is not believed any further treatment is necessary. This can be revisited at the request of members and is referenced in the update sheet;


p)  further consideration can be given to the brickwork colours and patterns and a different treatment to the cladding, such as a standing seam, could be investigated. It would be possible for the top of the building to be a lighter tone.


Members of the committee commented:


q)  some sort of enclosure boundary treatment is expected, other than a grassed area, even if it has a slope;


r)  replacing the cladding with brick would be preferable as brick is longer lasting;


s)  the car park entrance is a little too brutal in appearance and needs to be made more visually interesting;


t)  the provision of more homes is welcomed and some sort of recognition to celebrate the historic connection to the crocus of the Meadows area would be pleasing, but it would not necessarily need to be a crocus;


u)  this is a good design with thought to detail such as the depth of the reveals, but it is vital that the treatment of the link building is correct.




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


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


(a)  a contribution of £73,000 towards Education;


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


2)  for the power to determine the final details of both the terms of the Planning Obligation and the conditions of planning permission to be delegated to the Director for Planning and Regeneration;


3)  that the Committee are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with, in that the planning obligations sought 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.