Agenda item

Councillor Alan Clark informed the Committee that he is a Board Member of Nottingham Regeneration Ltd which had been consulted and submitted observations in relation to this item. He did not feel that this prohibited him from taking part in the discussion or voting on the item.

Councillor Jim Armstrong informed the Committee that he used to employ the applicant for item 4a. He did not feel that this prohibited him from taking part in the discussion or voting on the item.

Councillor Malcolm Wood informed the Committee that he is a Director of Nottingham Racecourse Ltd. He did not feel that this prohibited him from taking part in the discussion or voting on the item.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced the report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration on application 15/01202/PFUL3 submitted by Franklin Ellis Architects on behalf of McCann Family Investments Ltd seeking the demolish existing buildings and erect three apartment blocks (81 apartments) and associated works,

The Committee also considered additional information contained in the update sheet, noting the comments of Urban Design, which had been published subsequent to the agenda publication.

During discussions, the Committee considered the following issues:

a)  Concern had been expressed during the consultation process about the impact the development could have on a potential pedestrian and cycle bridge over the River Trent. Martin Poole explained that the bridge was no more than a  concept and had no status in  planning policy. However, the development would not preclude the possibility of a bridge being developed in either this or an alternative location in the future.

b)  Several councillors expressed concern about the face of the bank onto the river being hard concrete and the impact this could have on biodiversity. It was agreed that this could be addressed through conditions.

c)  Several committee members expressed the view that the architectural design of the development lacked detail and compared unfavourably with the neighbouring River Crescent development but several others spoke favourably of the development’s elegance and simplicity.

d)  The issue of viability assessment was discussed and Committee members requested involvement in the prioritisation process for Section 106 funding if it is not possible to achieve the full contribution which would ordinarily be required in accordance with planning policy.. It was agreed that colleagues would consult with an informal panel comprising Councillors Gibson, Arnold, Armstrong and Clark. It was also agreed that the same panel could look more generally at the issue of the use of Section 106 funding for affordable housing.

RESOLVED

(1)  Subject to:

a)  the prior completion of a Section 106 planning obligation which shall include:

i)  the on-going management and maintenance of areas of open space within the development;

ii)  permission for public use of the foot/cycle path and open space provided along the riverside

b)  the conclusion of the independent review of the submitted viability appraisal and consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair, opposition spokesperson and Councillor Clark:

iii)  the provision of travel information packs for each dwelling, together with funding for the provision of initial Kangaroo travel passes on request (equating to a maximum financial value of £42,120);

iv)  a financial contribution of £32,665 towards the provision of further school places at Nottingham Academy;

v)  the provision of 16 on site affordable housing units or, if appropriate, a commuted sum in lieu of this on-site provision.

to GRANT planning permission subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice, to include conditions related to the river frontage and its visual impact and impact on biodiversity

(2)  to delegate power to determine the final details of the conditions of planning permission to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration;

(3)  to delegate power to determine the final details of the Planning Obligation to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair, opposition spokesperson and Councillor Clark;

(4)  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;

(5)  that the Committee is satisfied that the Section 106 obligations sought would not exceed the permissible number of obligations according to the Regulation 123 (3) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.