Agenda item

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 informed the Committee that student numbers within the City continue to increase and it is important to ensure that sufficient purpose built student accommodation is available to prevent the use of traditional family housing. Provision is only just starting to catch up with demand.

 

Nigel Turpin, Heritage and Urban Design Manager, informed the Committee that his team had worked with the architects for several months on the scheme which he believes is a unique and interesting design that has addressed massing constraints whilst also meeting the client’s needs. It is believed that the hoods work well as they use different materials and ensure the appearance of the building is neither boring nor mundane.

 

Rob Percival requested an amendment to revised Recommendation in the Update Sheet to split the financial contribution between public open space and affordable housing, as set out below:

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  to grant planning permission subject to:

 

(a)  prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure:

 

(i)  a student management plan, to include restrictions on car use;

 

(ii)  a contribution of £89,492 for public open space for improvements to the public realm within the vicinity of the site;

 

(iii)  a contribution of £10,508 for off-site affordable housing

 

(b)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report and including the following additional conditions:

 

(i)  Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to achieve a 10% reduction in carbon emissions over and above the Building Regulations Approved Document L2A Conservation of Fuel and Power 2013 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme to be submitted shall take account of the recommendations made with the Energy Statement prepared by Mullins Associates dated January 2019.

 

  Reason: In the interests of the sustainable development of the site in accordance with Policy 1 of the Aligned Core Strategy;

 

(ii)  Prior to the commencement of any above ground works, a scheme of off-site highway works to include the upgrade of footways surrounding the site, works to facilitate a pedestrian crossing of Meadows Way (if feasible), the removal of any redundant crossovers and the provision of street trees, together with details for the ongoing maintenance of the works proposed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

 

  Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site, to encourage more sustainable forms of travel and to assist with the regeneration of the area, in accordance with Policy MU3 of the Local Plan and Policy 10 of the ACS;

 

(iii)  Prior to first occupation of the development, the off-site highway works shall be provided in accordance with the scheme approved pursuant to the above condition.

 

  Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site, to encourage more sustainable forms of travel and to assist with the regeneration of the area, in accordance with Policy MU3 of the Local Plan and Policy 10 of the ACS;

 

(iv)  Prior to first occupation of the apartments, the disabled parking spaces shall be provided, including the provision of electric vehicle charging points, in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

(2)  to delegate the power to determine the final details of the planning obligation and conditions to the Director of Planning and Regeneration;

 

(3)  that the Committee is satisfied that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with, in that the planning obligation sought is:

 

(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.

 

(4)  that the Committee is satisfied that the planning obligation(s) sought that relate to infrastructure would not exceed the permissible number of obligations in accordance with Regulation 123(3) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

 

Councillor Andrew Rule requested that his objection to the granting of planning permission was recorded.

Councillor Malcom Wood requested that his abstention from voting was recorded.