Venue: Ground Floor Committee Room - Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham, NG2 3NG. View directions
Contact: Catherine Ziane-Pryor Governance Officer
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair Minutes: In the absence of the Chair, Councillor Leslie Ayoola, the Vice-Chair, Councillor Kirsty L Jones, Chaired the meeting. |
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Councillor Leslie Ayoola (work commitments) Councillor Sam Harris (leave) Councillor Anwar Khan (unwell)
|
|
Declarations of Interests Minutes: None. |
|
Of the meeting held on 18 December 2024, for confirmation. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2024 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
10 Alpine Street Nottingham Nottingham City NG6 0HS Minutes: Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, presented planning application 24/00978/PFUL3 by Allan Joyce Architects Ltd. on behalf of Mr Philip Collins, for the demolition of vacant factory and erection of 20 supported living units with associated ancillary communal and management facilities.
The application is brought to Committee because it is proposed that the Section 106 (S106) planning obligations typically required by adopted planning policies, be waived in this case.
Rob Percival delivered a presentation which included a plan of the development site in context of the surrounding properties, along with a corresponding aerial photograph, street views of the current site from Alpine Street and Church Street, Computer-Generated Images (CGI) of the proposed development on both elevations, and a footprint plan of each floor of the development.
The following points were highlighted:
a) the development will provide specialist accommodation for Framework Housing Association;
b) the site is complex with different levels and the design has evolved since its initial proposal;
c) residents of nearby properties were consulted and did not object, but the Civic Society has raised concerns at the height of the development in relation to the neighbouring former ‘White Swan’ public house, which is now residential. However, Planning Officers are satisfied that this is not an issue, particularly as there is a car park between the development and property;
d) the developers have claimed that the scheme would not be viable if the £34k S106 planning obligation was required, and so are requesting that it is waived. Given that there is a need for specialist housing and that the development is to be partially funded from s106 Affordable Housing Contributions received from other developments, Officers feel that it is appropriate to recommend that s106 requirements be waived in this case;
e) the update-sheet highlights the requirement for consultation with the Health and Safety Executive under Local Plan Policy IN3, as although the site itself is not considered hazardous, it sits within a hazardous installation consultation zone, as defined within the LAPP, whereby a former neighbouring industrial site was active.
Members’ questions were responded to as follows:
f) the development is for specialist supported living accommodation and not stand-alone Class C3 dwelling units. As such the national space standard of 37m2 for a single person unit does not apply. These studio units range between 30 and 36 m2, and whilst self-contained, they are part of a specialist complex with additional communal and staff facilities and can only be used for this type of specialist accommodation. It should be noted that the same principals apply to student accommodation, where studio units are commonly 20m2, but as with this scheme, have additional shared facilities. The size of the units is also reflective of the public funding that supports such developments.;
g) the scheme will be Disability Discrimination Act compliant;
h) Whilst comments regarding the appropriateness of the Council grant funding this development were noted, that was not a material planning consideration for the purposes of determining the application;
i) if the S106 planning obligation was required to be paid, the development would not be viable. In addition, as the development was to be funded partially from existing s106 contributions for affordable housing, it did not seem appropriate to then “claw back” an element of those contributions and repurpose them for public open space;
j) the scheme does include the installation of solar panels and energy efficient heating.
Members’ comments included:
k) given the need of the city population for this type of accommodation, the application is supported, even given the lack of s106 contribution;
l) it is vital that new developments take a holistic approach and ensure designs provide the flexibility for different future uses and therefore sustainability;
m) whilst not a planning consideration to be taken into account here, the Council should be taking a rigorous approach to assessing grant applications at a time when public funds are extremely limited, including investigating whether an applicant holds substantial reserves. This broader issue needs to be addressed by the Council;
n) once operational, in addition to supporting citizens, this scheme is likely to save public funds on the cost of housing benefit while providing quality accommodation.
Resolved to grant planning permission subject to the Council being satisfied that there are no outstanding issues relating to the HSE consultation and the conditions substantially in the form listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report, with power to determine the final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Transport.
|