Agenda and minutes

Councillor Lesley Ayoola - other council business

Councillor Kevin Clarke - work commitments

Councillor Corral Jenkins – leave

Councillor Angela Kandola – other council business

Councillor Gul Khan – leave

Councillor Salma Mumtaz - other council business

Councillor Toby Neal - other council business

None.

Of the meeting held on 17 August 2022 (for confirmation).

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2022 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented application 21/02655/PFUL3 by Mr Marcus Tams on behalf of Mr A Marjerrison, for the residential development of 36 dwellings.

Rob Percival delivered a brief presentation which included an aerial view of the site currently, current street views, the proposed plan of the site and contextual computer generated images (CGIs) of the proposed development, and photographs of similarly designed properties.

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

a)  this is a long-standing brownfield site which is partly bordered by residential properties, the residents of which make use of street parking bays adjacent to the site;

b)  the proposal is for 36 dwellings to include 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes;

c)  historically, prior to the erection of the now demolished industrial buildings on the site, the area was residential and the current proposal echoes that of the original street plan;

d)  each property is provided with a parking space, a contained refuse bin area and trees on the corner of driveways;

e)  the site has been allocated for residential development within the Local Plan, with a preference for family housing;

f)  representations from neighbouring properties have mainly focused on the loss of street parking, including that currently accessed by users of the Lenton Centre. Currently there are approximately 17 short stay parking spaces on Willoughby Street, six of which will be lost if the development progresses. Planning officers do not feel that this is a strong enough reason to decline permission;

g)  an independently reviewed viability appraisal with regard to policy compliant  planning obligations (section 106) has been undertaken and has confirmed that the development is not able to make any financial contributions in this regard. However, the development is on behalf of Nottingham Housing Association and consists solely of affordable housing;

h)  it is noted that the open/shared area within the centre of the development is parking spaces allocated to properties without driveways, and is not intended for greater community use;

i)  the suggestion of a variation of brick colour can be discussed with the developer as the final details are yet to be determined. Members are assured that all bricks will be of a good quality;

j)  the suggestion of staggering the frontage of the terraced housing would not be feasible nor necessary for a development of this size, particularly as the building line of surrounding streets is the same;

k)  the durable boundary treatment of the outer edges of the site are considered suitable, and it is not considered unreasonable for boundaries to the rear, between properties contained within the site, to be constructed of wooden fencing;

l)  landscaping details are yet to be determined but are unlikely to include exposed soft landscaping on the site frontages other than trees, but this can be covered in the landscaping condition;

m)  all properties within the development would be owned and managed by Nottingham City Housing Association, although longer-term, there may be the potential for properties to be privately owned. However, the Council has introduced an article 4 direction that is intended to prevent properties being converted into houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) without planning permission, which in areas of high student concentration would not be granted.

Committee members’ comments included:

n)  the development of this long-standing brownfield site, which has experienced ongoing issues such as fly tipping, is welcomed, particularly for affordable housing;

o)  there is sympathy for residents and the Lenton Centre regarding the loss of parking and this is to be given further consideration by ward councillors to see  how this can be addressed;

p)  whilst this is an attractive development and the provision of affordable family housing is very welcome, the parking concerns of residents neighbouring the development do need to be taken into consideration;

q)  further detail within the eaves of the building would be welcomed and consideration given to the heights of panelled fencing with regard to blocking daylight but providing privacy;

r)  this application provides a welcome use of the site with attractive modern and substantial properties with interesting detail, however, a staggered frontage and varied brick colours would further improve the appearance;

s)  the brick boundary treatment to the front of the properties is welcomed, but it is requested the boundary treatment to the rear of the properties adjacent to the path providing private access to rear gardens is reconsidered as the currently proposed wooden slat fencing doesn’t last and can appear tatty within a fairly short period of time;

t)  the final details of the  landscaping needs to clearly determine maintenance responsibilities.

Resolved to grant planning permission subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of this report and within the update sheet.

It is noted that Councillors Sally Longford and Cate Woodward abstained from voting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented application 21/02662/PFUL3 by Philip Smith on behalf of Mr Richard Thomas for the conversion of the British Waterways Building to provide a total of 95 residential units (12 studios, 42 one bedroom apartments and 41 two bedroom apartments) including construction of a rooftop extension providing 8 apartments. Works to include internal and external alterations to allow the creation of the apartments including new lifts, staircases, secondary glazing, reception and communal lounge and other alterations to facilitate the proposals.

Rob Percival delivered a presentation which included contrasting views of the site, both currently and once developed including aerial, street and canal path views, and skyline views from differing points within the City.

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

a)  the application proposes an additional single-storey on the roof, the external walls of which will be set back from the roof edge with an intervening outdoor balcony space. The construction of the additional floor will include a dark grey cladding system with recessed joints;

b)  the existing basement will include parking, cycle storage and refuse bin storage;

c)  as this is a listed building, very few changes are proposed to the exterior, other than the additional top floor which has been treated sensitively and will be barely visible close to building and only have a subtle presence from a distance;

d)  a green roof is to be included which provides an interesting feature, enhances the application’s bio diversity merits and further improves the appearance of the roof from higher points within the City, notably the Castle terrace;

e)  the loading bays are historically relevant features and whilst currently these have a single  glazed panel, the development offers the opportunity to revisit the design and provide  window frames which are more in keeping with the building;

f)  the planning obligation requirement for  section 106 funding has been challenged on viability grounds. As is standard, this has been independently assessed and it has been concluded that a reduced section 106  contribution of £79,000 will be provided.

Committee members’ comments included:

g)  this is an iconic local building and will prove an attractive place to live in a very lively area, so care must be taken with regard to appropriate soundproofing;

h)  the roof terrace is an attractive and subtle addition. It’s pleasing that once lit up at night, it will not be detrimental to the overall appearance of the building;

i)  consideration should be given to sustainable heating systems such as heat source pumps, or even harvesting heat from the canal water, which has been used elsewhere locally, is less noisy, and provides an effective and environmentally friendly heating and cooling solution;

j)  insulation will be key for a building of this age and construction;

k)  this is a good use of the building and the application is welcomed.

Resolved

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 to Education of £55,783;

(b)  an offsite contribution towards public open space of £19,502;

(c)  a contribution towards Employment and Training Opportunities of £3,714;

(ii)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notices at the end of this report;

(iii)  investigation with the developer regarding the potential use of the canal water for heating and cooling the development;

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 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.

It is noted that Councillor AJ Matsiko voted against the application and requested his vote be recorded.