Agenda and minutes

Councillor Kevin Clark

Councillor Sam Harris

Councillor Anwar Khan

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 23 October 2024 (as amended at the previous meeting), and 20 November 2024, were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented planning application 24/00281/PFUL3, lodged by Axis on behalf of Conygar Nottingham Ltd, for the construction and operation of Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) and associated hard and soft landscaping, foul and surface water drainage, and utility infrastructure. Phase 2B of the Island Quarter.

The application is brought to Committee because it is a major application on a prominent

site, where there are important design considerations.

Rob Percival delivered a presentation showing a map of the area, and aerial view of the site of the second phase in context of the surrounding properties, current street view photographs taken from different angles, computer-generated images of how the final development will appear from street level, and a floor plan.

The following points were highlighted:

a)  the design has progressed since the initial proposal and now has a focal point of the primary entrance on the corner of Manvers Street and the road ‘City Link’, with the height the building stepping back from 11 storeys on the corner to 7 storeys;

b)  the accommodation will be split 80/20 between cluster/studio units;

c)  objections to the height and configuration of the building have been received and are outlined within the report, but planning officers consider that the proposal is of a comfortable scale for the site, particularly as it is included within the agreed ‘Tall Buildings Zone’;

d)  the Section 106 Planning Obligation of £1.5m will be fully met, as detailed in the report;

e)   the update sheet provides further information regarding cycle parking;

f)  a response to the consultation from the Environment Agency is yet to be received, but provision to react to the response is enabled within the recommendations.

Members’ questions were responded to as follows:

g)  the objections of residents to the height of the proposal are noted and have been  considered, but protection of private views is not a material planning consideration.  The properties of the residents in question are sited on an elevated ground level and some distance from the development. It is noted that no strategic views of the city will be impaired;

h)  The ‘BREEAM’ rating (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)referred to within the reports is usually applied to commercial buildings not residential, but this development has achieved an ‘excellent’ rating, as evidenced by the bio-net-gain of 475%;

i)  the City’s need for social housing is understood, but there is also a significant need for student accommodation, which if met, is likely to release properties elsewhere in the City which could then be used by families. The accommodation needs of both are supported by planning officers, but this would be a very different development, with a different developer if the accommodation was social housing.  Student numbers within the City are closely monitored and projections calculated. It may change, but student numbers continue to rise;

j)  with more student accommodation available, market value is likely to improve, but there is likely to also be an impact on HMOs, whereby licensing quality requirements may release properties for family/single tenant use. Tracing the numbers of student HMOs through council tax exemptions has shown a reduction during the past few years, which is expected to continue;

k)  development across the broader site is at differing stages of negotiation and the planning process, but overall is slower than hoped. The hotel phase is currently being re-examined by the developer;

l)  with regard to the drive to reduce carbon emissions, all new developments of this type are now completely electric, with no gas connection at all. The district heating system doesn’t currently have capacity to support developments such as this.

Members’ comments included:

m)  the development of this brownfield site as an improvement for the area is welcomed, as is the provision for student accommodation close to the city centre;

n)  the commitment to provision of a policy compliant Section 106 Planning Obligation without challenge is welcomed, as are improvements to the initial design;

o)  the positive bio-net-gain on the site of 475% is impressive and very much welcomed;

p)  with regard to students occupying houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) which may potentially be suitable as family homes, the rent difference between a room in a shared house and one of these units is significant, and therefore it is likely that there will always be some students occupying what could be family housing;

q)  It is vital that the development has a comprehensive 24-hour management plan in place, including to address antisocial behaviour, such as noise nuisance;

r)  care should be taken to ensure that native trees are planted within the landscaping to ensure longevity as many non-native species may not survive;

s)  it’s vital the continued development of student accommodation is encouraged to help deflate rental values across the city, but at the same time the ability to convert  accommodation to future non-student use needs to be considered if students numbers begin to decline or provision exceeds demand;

t)   if student accommodation isn’t provided now, then all rents will go up across the city, not just those for students;

u)   the provision of housing, on suitable sites, would be welcomed.

RESOLVED 

1)  to grant planning permission for the reasons set out in this report and the Update Sheet, subject to no material objections being raised by the Environment Agency and the following:

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

a)  a financial contribution of £856,186 towards affordable housing in lieu of on-site provision;

b)  a financial contribution of £517,842 towards the provision or enhancement of offsite Public Open Space or Public Realm, in lieu of on-site provision;

c)  Local Employment and Training opportunities, including a financial contribution of £124,514

d)  a Student Management Scheme, which shall include a restriction on car usage, mitigation and management of potential noise nuisance, security details, cleaning and refuse management;

(ii)   the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of this report and included in 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 of Planning and Transport;

3)  to note that Committee is 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.