Agenda item

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building will not meet the projected CO2 limits which will come into effect in 2020, in effect being environmentally out-of-date by the time of its completion.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 images (CGIs) of the proposed building from a variety of short and long viewpoints, including from the Meadows and the Embankment, Arkwright Street and Trent Bridge.

 

The following points were highlighted:

 

(a)  The proposal is for a Regional Hub for Central Government Services in the East Midlands which at maximum capacity could host up to 7,000 employees;

 

(b)  The first phase block would be largely glazed with anodized cladding and a masonry base;

 

(c)  Since the original application, and following the concerns of Committee members, the height of the Phase II building has been reduced by two floors;

 

(d)  Assessment has been undertaken and Historic England conclude that that the proposed development’s impact on the heritage assets of the City, including the Castle and Station, would be at the upper end of ‘less than substantial’.;

 

(e)  The public benefits of the development to the City are outlined in paragraph 7.6 of the report.

 

Paul Seddon, Chief Planner, informed the Committee that with regard to timescales, there was no capacity for the application to be redesigned but the Committee does have influence with regard to materials and details such as solar panels and lighting. In addition, it should be noted that the developer has agreed to work with the Council to deliver local employment and training opportunities in connection with the scheme.

Comments from the Committee included:

 

(f)  This is a hard decision as although valuing the historical skyline of Nottingham, as seen in the CGIs, not all views of the City are significantly affected and the historical buildings still stand proud;

 

(g)  This needs to be a quality building and the attention to detail in the zig-zag design of elevations panels which throw shadows and provide visual texture, is innovative;

 

(h)  This building will be an iconic view to the front the station. Formerly it was one of the ugliest views in the city so this will very much be an improvement;

 

(i)  As a Regional Government Hub which provides the opportunity of bringing up to 7,000 jobs into the City, establishing Nottingham as a regional capital and business hub and generally raising the profile of Nottingham, this application is supported;

 

(j)  Increasing the number of high quality jobs in the City, and the associated social and economic benefit, is welcomed but this proposal is disappointingly unambitious with regard to environmental standards and will have an environmentally negative impact on the City, country and world with regards to its CO2 impact. The original Inland Revenue  building was iconic in its environmentally ground breaking approach and won several awards, so the environmental proposals for this development are particularly  disappointing, especially as a Government building at a time when the City is under pressure from Central Government to improve air quality and significantly cut CO2 emissions by 34% by 2020. On this basis alone the application cannot be supported unless significant, yet feasible changes are made to reduce the building’s environmental impact;

 

(k)  For an office block the design and detail is pleasant and the work of Planning Officers and the concessions to date of the developer are acknowledged, but the top storey, although now receded, is strikingly similar to a shipping container so should be reconsidered, possibly to include an angled detail to prevent it appearing so ‘blocky’;

 

(l)  It is frustrating that although the environmental standards applied to this development will soon be outdated, they currently meet the required standards and so the application cannot be declined on this basis or changes required to be made;

 

(m)  It is appreciated that all new Government buildings have to be ‘bomb proof’ and that this restricts the application of some environmentally beneficial features to this design. Planning officers are asked to try and improve the environmental standards of this development;

 

(n)  Environmental concerns are acknowledged but with the benefit of so many local jobs (including associated with the supply chain) the Committee should be sympathetic to the developer and so the application is supported;

 

(o)  Once established, the Hub will be a catalyst for regeneration in the City. If Nottingham doesn’t approve the application then it’s possible that Derby or Leicester will welcome the proposal in their Cities and Nottingham will miss out. Nottingham is the natural site for the Hub, particularly on this site which has is particularly well placed for access to sustainable transport;

 

(p)  This development is expedient to bringing large companies into the City or risk losing out to another local City if an alternative site was to be favoured. The City is restricted by its boundaries and so building upwards is required but these buildings need to have integrity. Although the environmental concerns of Councillor Sally Longford as Portfolio Holder for Energy and Environment are acknowledged and shared, approving the application will bring employment opportunities into the City and so it is supported;

 

(q)  Buildings often look better in reality than depicted in CGIs and this design isn’t bad and is far better than the building which it replaces;

 

(r)  It is requested that planning colleagues work with Historic England with regard to the progression of Phase 2 of the development;

 

(s)  Despite reservations, the amendments to date, including the lowering of the phase 2 building, are welcomed but improvements can still be made. The environmental sustainability points raised are understood but at the risk of potentially losing additional employment opportunities if the Hub were to be sited elsewhere, the application is supported;

 

(t)  The decision on this application is a balance between jobs and the environment. The City needs to accept the changing nature of employment. This development will provide the number of jobs equivalent to 6 collieries. The decision makers in London don’t care where this Regional Hub is based so if the application is declined or made too awkward in Nottingham then the Hub will be sited elsewhere and Nottingham will lose out on additional jobs, and may even lose existing jobs. The economic importance of this decision is very significant to the economy of the City;

 

(u)  This development will provide a good quality building built to current building standards with attractive cladding which has successfully been used elsewhere. The site is close to the station within easy access of sustainable transport and will encourage further redevelopment of the area so is supported;

 

(v)  There is sympathy for the residents of the Meadows who will lose their current view of the City, but views are not legally protected.

 

RESOLVED to approve the recommendations as set out in the report and amended in the update sheet as follows:

 

1)   That  the submitted Environmental Statement contains all the information specified in regulation 18(3) or (4), of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations “the 2017 Regulations” as appropriate, and any additional information specified in Schedule 4 to the 2017 Regulations which is relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected. No further information is required;

 

2)   That in making the decision on this application, the environmental information, namely the Environmental Statement, any representations made by any body required by the 2017 Regulations to be invited to make representations, and any representations duly made by any other person about the environmental effects of the development, has been examined and considered;

 

3)   That the reasoned conclusion outlined in this Committee Report and Update Sheet, is up to date as it addresses the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment, taking into account the examination referred to above, that are likely to arise as a result of the development and subject to any mitigation measures proposed in terms of flood risk concludes, any significant effects do not amount to major adverse effects that would justify the refusal of the planning application, be integrated into the decision to grant planning permission;

 

4)   that appropriate monitoring measures under regulation 26 (1)(d) and (3) of the 2017 Regulations do not need to be imposed given the nature, location and size of the relevant project and its effects on the environment;

 

5)   for Regulation 30(1) of the 2017 Regulations be complied with as soon as reasonably practicable and the Director of Planning and Regeneration be delegated authority to undertake the necessary requirements, namely in relation to paragraphs (a)-(d) therein, in particular making available the necessary information to accompany a decision as set out in regulation 29 (2) of the 2017 Regulations to include a summary of the results of the consultations undertaken, and information gathered, in respect of the application and how those results have been incorporated or otherwise addressed;

 

6)   to grant planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee Report and Update Sheet, subject to the conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of the report and additional conditions as noted in the Update Sheet. Power to determine the final details of the conditions is delegated to the Director of Planning and Regeneration.

 

Councillor Sally Longford, Portfolio Holder for Energy and Environment, requested that her abstention from voting is recorded.