Venue: Ground Floor Committee Room - Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham, NG2 3NG. View directions
Contact: Zena West 0115 8764305
Apologies for Absence
Councillor Cate Woodward - unwell
Declarations of Interest
To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2018.
Subject to listing Councillor Gul Khan’s apologies for absence for leave and within minute 56, Land between Clifton Wood and Clifton Phase 4 Development Yew Tree Lane, showing that Councillor Josh Cook and not Councillor Malcolm Wood requested that his vote against the resolution was recorded, the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2018 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
Site Of Multi Storey Car Park Sovereign House And Factories, Queens Bridge Road
Prior to the Committee’s consideration of this item and with the permission of the Chair, Councillor Michael Edwards addressed the Committee in his role as a Ward Councillor and made the following points:
(a) Whilst following some disappointing historic decisions to approve some applications, the Committee’s approach and design requirements have improved, the existing tax office buildings are a good example of this where an interesting, attractive, environmentally sensitive building which was the ground breaking for its time, was sited in Nottingham. However, the design proposed for this site is basically a block with no shape, visual interest or distinction for a building which is expected to last decades with a lease period of 25 years;
(b) Whilst complying with current building regulations and required CO2 emission limits, we know that this building will not meet the projected CO2 limits which will come into effect in 2020, in effect being environmentally out-of-date by the time of its completion. Whilst meeting the need for Grade A office space, the building disappointingly does not provide the widely available environmentally sound features and considerations;;
(c) The application for what is proposed to be an East Midlands Regional Hub for Government Services refers to the local benefit of providing jobs but is not clear if there will be substantial transfers of staff from Derby and Leicester and where the jobs referred to in the second phase of development will come from. There is no guarantee that Nottingham citizens will benefit from these job projections;
(d) It is frustrating that as a local Ward Councillor, documentation and planning proposal details were not initially made available, particularly with regard to the striking sightline impact of the proposal from the Meadows and Embankment, which will effect local residents;
(e) Committee members are asked to pause and question if enough is known regarding the long-term environmental impact of this application before making a decision on the basis of jobs.
Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, introduced application 18/02277/POUT by WYG Planning Limited on behalf of Peveril Securities Limited, for a Hybrid office development (Use Class B1), comprising two buildings totalling up to 58,360 sqm (GIA) together with access and public realm improvements. Phase 1 building (full application) of 36,519 sqm (GIA) and phase 2 building (outline application with access, layout and scale to be considered at this stage) of 21,841 sqm (GIA).
The application is brought to Committee as this is a major application which departs from some policies of the Development Plan, is of strategic importance and which is on a prominent site where there are complex design and heritage considerations.
Further information, including summaries of representations from Bridge Ward Councillors, Lillian Greenwood MP, local residents, and the Greenspace Biodiversity Officer, and a draft decision, is included in the Update Sheet which was circulated at the meeting and attached to the online agenda.
Rob Percival provided a brief presentation on the application which included floor plans, current aerial and street level photographs of the site and computer generated ... view the full minutes text for item 62.
Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced planning application 18/01789/PFUL3 by Letts Wheeler Architects on behalf of Nottingham Community Housing Association for a development of 24 family houses and 7 supported housing flats with associated staff office/overnight accommodation.
The application is brought to Committee because policy compliant S106 contributions may not be achieved on the grounds of viability depending on the awaited conclusion of the District Valuer.
Martin Poole delivered a brief presentation which included a plan of the proposed development, photographs of the current site from different angles, floor plans of the 1, 2 and 4 bedroom houses, plans of the flats, and GCIs of the completed development from different angles.
The following points were highlighted:
(a) At the request of officers, amendments have been made to the original plans including an amendment to the design of the roof of the flats;
(b) The view of the District Valuer has been sought with regard to the potential of a S106 contribution, but due to a backlog in valuations and time constraints of the developer, the Housing Association has requested that the application is put before the Committee to consider delegation to the Director of Planning and Regeneration for the negotiation of the value determination and allocation of any S106 financial contributions;
(c) Representations have been received from local residents raising concerns around parking but each proposed dwelling is provided with a car parking space and there is further capacity on site for visitor parking. The current space at the front of the site which is often used by neighbouring residents is part of the site and offers no parking rights;
(d) Further information is provide in the update sheet, including comments from Highways colleagues who, having assessed the site access and parking within the area, did not raise any objections.
Members of the Committee commented as follows:
(e) Whilst not objecting to the development, the request for delegation to Officers regarding the approval of the level of S106 funding is not acceptable as this is for the determination of the Planning Committee;
(f) The development of the site is welcomed, as is clarification on the concerns raised about parking;
(g) The determination of S106 funding should be brought back to Committee for approval;
(h) The agreement to maintain the steep bank on the edge of the development is welcomed;
(i) Each house should be provided with a car charging point and if there is capacity, solar panels should be installed on the roofs where possible;
(j) Planning Officers are requested to ensure that boundary treatments are carefully considered, adequate and durable;
(k) Further clarity needs to be sought as to why the developer believes that a S106 contribution is not viable;
(l) Rather than delay the progress of the development by requiring it to return to Committee for S106 approval, the Committee could delegate approval to the Director of Planning and Regeneration in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair, Lead opposition spokesperson on the Committee, and Councillor Leslie Ayoola as ... view the full minutes text for item 63.
Rob Perceval, Area Planning Manager, introduced application18/00131/PFUL3 by Stephenson Studio on behalf of Sheriff Way Nottingham Ltd, for planning permission for a mixed residential development of student accommodation (420 beds), apartments (149) and associated works.
The application is brought to Committee because it relates to a major development with important land use, design and regeneration considerations, and where the planning obligations were initially proposed to be waived for viability reasons.
To support the information provided in the report, Rob Perceval delivered a brief presentation which included:
o Street views of the current site from different positions
o a plan of the area
o aerial photographs
o floorplans of the proposed development
o CGI views of the building from different directions
o 3-D images to illustrate the height and impact of the building in its future context.
It is noted that the update sheet informs the Committee that since the report was issued, although the assessment of the District Valuer has determined that a S106 contribution is unviable, the developer has agreed to make a contribution of £100,000.
Whilst there are six disabled car parking spaces, there is no provision for resident parking, but the development does include 105 secure cycle parking spaces for the student accommodation, which equates to one cycle space per four rooms, and 1 space for each of the apartments. A pickup and drop-off point is provided for students and residents of the apartments.
Members of Committee made the following comments:
(a) The provision of further student accommodation is opposed as surely there will come a point when there will be a surplus which won’t be appropriate for any other use;
(b) Several student accommodation schemes have already been considered by the Committee in recent months and it is a reasonable concern that the City Centre may be nearing saturation point. It would be helpful if information on current and projected student numbers, alongside projected accommodation demand, should be made available to the Committee;
(c) The scheme is pleasing in several ways as the design is clean and crisp with some curves. The building may be imposing but it works well on that site;
(d) The design is quite good, unusual and a reasonable size for the location;
(e) Student accommodation is welcomed as there still is a need and it will reduce the housing pressure in residential areas with high concentrations of HMOs;
(f) Consideration should be given to ensuring that the disabled parking spaces each have car charging points;
(g) The courtyard element is welcomed;
(h) The S106 contribution is not enough once the value and sale price of properties is considered. The District Valuer’s opinion on rental values for these properties, given that the market in this area is unknown, does not provide confidence in their judgement for a scheme of this scale. £100,000 appears very modest and should be renegotiated;
(i) overall the scheme is acceptable except for the ‘hooded’ features on the upper floors which appear to emulate gun turrets.
Rob Percival ... view the full minutes text for item 64.