Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 16th December, 2020 2.30 pm

Venue: Remote - To be held remotely via Zoom - https://www.youtube.com/user/NottCityCouncil. View directions

Contact: Kate Morris  Governance Officer

Items
No. Item

38.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Councillor Maria Joannou – No reason given

Councillor Ethan Radford – No reason given

39.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

None

40.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020, for confirmation

Minutes:

Subject to correction of a typographical error recording the absence of Councillor Mohammed Saghir twice, the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.  

41.

South-West Section of Bulwell Academy - Henry Mellish Site, Highbury Road pdf icon PDF 1003 KB

Minutes:

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced application number 19/01270/PFUL3 for planning permission by Steven Milan on behalf of GR No. 8 LTD for the construction of 45 new dwelling houses and associated infrastructure. The application is brought to Committee because it is a major development with important land use considerations and which has generated a significant level of public interest contrary to the recommendation.

 

To meet the Council's Performance Targets this application should have been determined by 10th September 2019.

 

Additional information, amendments and changes to the item since the publication of the agenda were included in an update sheet, which was appended to the agenda published online. It included Highways Officer comments based on the revised site layout plans.

 

The Committee had previously discussed this application at its 18 November  2020 meeting (minute 34) where Committee members had asked Officers and developers to look at a number of different issues including, road design, trees, material palette, further information on highway safety and proper consideration of design for the entrances to the site.

 

The following points were discussed:

 

(a)  At the previous Planning Committee meeting members raised concerns about the road design and street trees. Following consultation with the developer there have been significant design changes with additions of stone setts, more street trees, and block paving. The design presented at this Committee meeting is still in development and the final details will be secured through planning conditions.  Technical  and safety approval will be subject to the usual processes as part of highway adoption. .;

 

(b)  Following concerns raised by Committee members, Ward Councillors and the public the developers have altered the material palette and now propose use of red and brown brick. Houses now echo the existing housing stock and use a similar materiality;

 

(c)  The developer has proposed the use of windows on elevations that are within the public view point. They are not proposing to add windows to the blank elevations facing driveways as there would be little public interest in doing so and it may raise privacy concerns. Committee members remained concerned that the blank walls were unattractive and lack of windows restricted the natural light internally;

 

(d)  Committee members thanked officers, the developers, the public and ward councillors, for working together to ensure that the development fits well into the existing area; 

 

(e)  The details and extent of the use of block paving on the road space is still being designed. Maintenance, safety and details are yet to be finalised and will require a full safety assessment prior to being confirmed. These details will be secured through the planning conditions;

 

(f)  Highways Officers have looked again at the issue of highway safety concerning the entrances. The entrance onto Highbury Road is pedestrian access only and raises no concerns. The entrance onto Kensal Drive does not raise concerns. The final design will be subject to safety audit;

 

(g)  Committee members commented that there had been a big improvement to the shared street space and that the designs appeared far less car dominated and that the design would have a natural traffic calming effect;

 

(h)  The affordable housing contribution from the scheme will either be 20% of the housing build as part of the development (or the neighbouring development) or a contribution of £351,000 for affordable housing schemes across the City. The open space contribution of £47,840 will go towards open space improvement or provision in the surrounding area;

 

(i)  It is anticipated that the two small areas of green space adjacent to houses on the curve of the road will be the responsibility of the home owner to maintain, whilst the larger green space adjacent to Highbury Road, will be the responsibility of the developers to maintain (probably through a management company);

 

Resolved:

1)  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 the published report and subject to:

(a)   Prior completion of an agreement under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to secure a section 106 planning obligation to include :

(i) A financial contribution of £351,000 towards off site affordable housing or 20% affordable housing provision on site or on the neighbouring development site at Piccadilly (19/01271/PFUL3)

(ii) An off-site public open space financial contribution of £47,840 towards enhancement in the surrounding area and

(iii) A financial contribution of £16,336 towards employment and training and provision of employment opportunities during the construction phase

(b) the indicative conditions listed in the draft decision notice at the end of this report.

 

2)  Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regeneration to determine the final details of the terms of the section 111 agreement and the planning obligation and the conditions of planning permission

 

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.

 

Councillor Kevin Clarke voted against the recommendations and asked that his vote be recorded.

 

 


42.

Sports Ground, Junction of Piccadilly and Brooklyn Road pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced application number 19/01271/PFUL3 for planning permission by CPMG Architects on behalf of GR No. 9 LTD for the construction of 57 new dwelling houses and associated infrastructure. The application is brought to Committee because it is a major development with important land use considerations which is not fully policy compliant and which has generated a significant level of public interest contrary to the recommendation.

 

To meet the Council's Performance Targets this application should have been

determined by 5th September 2019.

 

Additional information, amendments and changes to the item since the publication of the agenda were included in an update sheet, which appended to the agenda published online. It included further comments from Highways officers on the revised site layout plans.

 

The Committee had previously discussed this application at its  18 November 2020 meeting (minute 35).

 

The following points were discussed:

 

(a)  Further representations have been made by Poor Clare monastery (not included in the update sheet as received subsequent to its publication) raising concerns around increased traffic causing safety issues, reduction in road space on Brooklyn Road for residents parking and being overlooked by the houses closest to the Monastery;

 

(b)  At the previous Planning Committee meeting members raised concerns about the impact of the development on local parking, materials and design and road design/layout. Following work with the developer the plans have been altered to address these concerns;

 

(c)  Additional landscaping to increase privacy for the Monastery on the southern boundary of the site has been introduced, and has the configuration of the road lay out. Trees along the boundary with Piccadilly Road will be retained following a shift in plot configuration;

 

(d)  The material palette has been altered from buff brickwork to red and brown brick which is sympathetic to the existing housing stock in the area;

 

(e)  Highways Officers have visited the site and although they recognise that there will be increased on-street parking they do not feel that this would cause detriment to the existing situation as the development provides sufficient car parking for the new houses. If there are issues following the development consideration can be given to the introduction of a traffic regulation order. Full road safety audits and assessments will take place in terms of road safety implications of this development;

 

(f)  The Local Plan site allocation considers potential for development and provides guidance, rather than absolute requirements. As such the proposed development does not conflict with the Local Plan and is considered to be the best layout for the site.

 

Resolved:

 

1)   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 subject to:

(a) Prior completion of an agreement under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to secure a section 106 planning obligation to include:

(i)   A financial contribution of £459,977 towards off site affordable housing or 20% affordable housing provision on site or on the neighbouring development site at Henry Mellish (19/01270/PFUL3)

(ii) An off-site public open space financial contribution of £62,523 towards enhancement in the surrounding area and

(iii) A financial contribution of £22,500 towards employment and training and provision of employment opportunities during the construction phase

(g)  The indicative conditions listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the published report.

 

2)   Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regeneration to determine the final details of the terms of the section 111 agreement and the planning obligation and the conditions of planning permission; and

 

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.

 

Councillor Michael Edwards was unable to participate in the vote due to brief loss of connection part way through the presentation of the item.

 

Councillor Kevin Clarke voted against the recommendations and asked that his vote be recorded.