Venue: Ground Floor Committee Room - Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham, NG2 3NG. View directions
Contact: Catherine Ziane-Pryor Governance Officer
Apologies for Absence
Councillor Kevin Clarke – personal
Councillor Jay Hayes – unwell
Councillor AJ Matsiko – personal
Councillor Toby Neal – personal
Councillor Mohammed Saghir - other council business
Councillor Angela Kandola
Declarations of Interests
Of the meeting held on 20 July 2022 (for confirmation).
The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022 were confirmed as a true record and was signed by the Chair.
Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, introduced application number 21/01479/PFUL3 by Clarendon Nottingham Ltd. for planning permission to redevelop and extend a former retail and office building to provide purpose built student accommodation and retail/cafe/restaurant/office (class E use).
Rob Percival delivered a brief presentation which included aerial view of the site in relation to the City Centre, contextual Street elevation computer generated images (CGIs) of the proposed front and rear views, and floor plans. Also included were images of brick detail and the development proposals originally submitted, which have since changed significantly.
The following points were highlighted and Committee members’ questions responded to:
a) the application is for purpose built student accommodation and intends to retain the decorative brick frontage of the currently vacant building but fully occupy the plot footprint, including a courtyard and parking area;
b) it is intended to retain and refurbish the front street level units which may be used for ‘class E’ activity such as retail, restaurant, cafe or office use;
c) access to the accommodation will be possible from both Goose Gate at the front and Woolpack Lane from the rear;
d) care has been taken to be sensitive to the frontage height on Goose Gate by stepping back the 5 and 6 storey levels, which are of a similar height to buildings in the vicinity of Woolpack Lane;
e) to prevent a block-like effect and to reflect the diversity of building plot sizes in the area, the Woolpack frontage is staggered and of differing heights to give the impression of two separate buildings. This has resulted in some split level floors;
f) due to the topography of the area, there is no rear access to the lower ground floor units fronting onto Goose Gate;
g) the upper ground floor provides a communal space, including a courtyard;
h) consideration has been given to brick colour, the impact on visual space, and texture variation. An artistic panel is proposed for the side of the highest boundary wall elevation for visual interest;
i) there have been some objections, as outlined in the report, mainly regarding the extended height, but officers are confident that following amendments to the original proposal, the currently proposed height and scale are appropriate for the area and there has also been positive feedback regarding the welcome regeneration impact on Woolpack Lane;
j) there had been a challenge on the viability of a Section 106 contribution, so as is standard practice, the development was subject to independent viability appraisal which considers the proposal and costings in detail. The appraisal found that of the potential £296,000 contribution, the development is eligible to contribute £170,000. It is noted that the appraisal document has been circulated to members of the Committee;
k) the application must meet the higher standards requirements of the recently revised Building Regulations which significantly upgraded the requirements around heating, cooling and sustainability;
l) the potential inclusion of solar panels can be raised with the developer;
m) the conditions require further detail of design and construction to be approved, but members’ comments that any artwork/detail in the boundary wall later may be obscured by the development of neighbouring properties, is noted.
Members of the Committee commented as follows:
n) the development is welcomed as an attractive design which retains the frontage of the existing building with the higher elevations stepped back;
o) there is a need for student accommodation and the City Centre is ideal;
p) the entrances need to be of a sufficient design value and easily identified along with appropriate lighting and security;
q) sustainability is important, including ensuring that light is retained within the courtyard to prevent it appearing dark;
r) additional colour, potentially including brickwork, would be welcomed;
s) the green technology credentials need to be strengthened, including heat management to ensure that the building doesn’t become too hot to prevent comfortable living, and it would also be sensible to include solar panels;
t) the frontage of Woolpack Lane will be much improved by this development;
u) The effort to define a ‘plinth’ on the Woolpack Lane ground floor is acknowledged, but an alternative to the ‘corduroy’ brick detailing needs to be reconsidered and made to appear less bulky. The Woolpack Lane entrance also requires more consideration to detail;
v) concerns are understood regarding the fixing solar panels to a boundary wall against which a later development may be proposed, but the panels can later be moved if required: we all need to be more imaginative and more ambitious;
w) the architect is congratulated on the elegance of the shop frontage and overall design is welcomed.
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) an off-site Affordable Housing contribution of £102,000;
(b) an off-site Open Space contribution of £58,000;
(c) local employment and training during construction, including a financial contribution of £10,000;
(d) a student management plan and restriction on occupants keeping private vehicles within the City;
(ii) the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notices at the end of the report;
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 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.