Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

1. Construction of 152 new residential dwellings contained in three buildings comprising of a 15+2 storey tower; ground and lower ground floor for commercial office space; car & cycling parking; refuse & recycling storage.
2. Informing committee that the application came at the end of two years negotiations with all parties; taking into account the decision outcomes following an appeal in 2009; had regard for the Urban Living SPD; national and local planning policy.
3. Public consultation resulted in 99 objections; challenging the proposed height of the buildings and the impact of traffic on the Bath Road and overspill parking onto nearby streets amongst other issues. 
4. Officers had considered in full all objections and areas of concern in the report.
5. The height of the building:  Officers had measured the development against all relevant policies and the Temple Quarter Spatial Framework that support the view that this location was appropriate for a tall landmark building.  Together with the issue of the height impact on local heritage assets specifically: Grade II listed Holy Nativity Church tower; Grade II listed Thunderbolt pub; Arnos Vale Cemetery.
6. The development will provided 20% affordable housing (30 affordable dwellings) to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement as outlined in the report.
7. The proposed dwellings exceed the minimum space standards; many apartments have a balcony.
8. The proposed travel plans intends to discourage residents owning cars; the developers have agreed to make a financial contribute to a future resident parking scheme that may need to be considered should parking in the vicinity of the development become an issue.
9. Officers sought delegated authority to continue the discussion on  trees.

Questions of clarification

10. Heat Network:  a condition will be imposed to direct that the development joins the heat network when it is available.
11. Affordable Housing: 20% affordable housing is secured that will include 5 shared ownership units; the development may provide additional affordable units but this would be a commercial decision  and not one for planning to consider.
12. Urban Living SPD; Members questioned whether the principles were being set aside to enable this development.  Officers reassured committee that the development performed well against the SPD and this rationale was detailed in the report.
13. Stability of the River Bank:  Concerns were raised over the development sliding into the river;  Officers advised that a ground investigation would be conditioned; that at the request of the Environment Agency the development was moved back further away from the river this adjustment is detailed in the current  plans to satisfy the concern raised; there is a requirement that the building includes piled foundations in its construction to ensure stability.
14. Fire Safety:  In light of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy the single stairwell design was challenged.  Officers assured committee that:

15. Trees: officers confirmed that they sought delegated authority to negotiate the final mitigation for the loss of trees on site
16. Condition 73: Cllr Stevens asked whether the viability could be reassessed if the net to gross ratio of the residential element of the development increased above 75%, in order to see if additional affordable housing could be provided. Officers responded that such a change would require a new planning application. If the application was a full application then the viability would be assessed as a matter of course. However, if the application was a Section 73 application, officers advised that a viability review would be appropriate. Officers suggested that a planning obligation that required the viability to be reassessed if a Section 73 application was submitted that resulted in the Net to Gross percentage increasing from the current level of 75%, be included in the Section 106 Agreement.
17. Children’s play area: that there were a number of local parks near to the development at School Road and Arnos Vale.
18. Car Parking:  concerns were raised over resident parking and overspill into the neighbouring streets that are already congested. 
    • The developer intended to discourage car ownership.
    • They would allocate the parking spaces that will be on site to specific properties.
    • The development is on a main road with a bus route; near the city centre and the local train station.

Discussion:

19. Cllr Eddy agreed that the site should be brought back into use;  a site identified as suitable for a tall building; had no concerns about the design; was reassured that the Fire Service had adequately taken up the issue of fire safety in tall buildings; would vote for approval.
20. Cllr Mead asked Officers to ensure that the developers work with the bus company to develop better connectivity;  evidenced the lack of buses along the route; stressed that a development with limited parking required good transport links to discourage resident from owning a car; would vote for approval.
21. Cllr Wright had concerns that the development failed to meet the Urban Living SPD in that it was an average development and would benefit from not exceeding 10 storeys; would vote against.
22. Cllr Davies noted that the development went towards satisfying the housing shortage; provided affordable housing; although would look to the developer providing better children’s play option;  would vote for approval.
23. Cllr Stevens concern about the apparent departure from the SPD principles and not convinced that the inspectorate was correct with their finding that the site is right for a tall building; was concern about the lack of communal buildings and play area; the health of residence in a tall building environment; would vote against.
24. Cllr Goggin saw no planning reasons to object but was dismayed at the apparent departure from the SPD.
25. Councillor Eddy moved to accept Officers recommended to grant and Councillor Mead seconded.
26. When put to the vote:

Resolved (8 for; 2 against;  0 abstention) that the application be approved subject to the recommendations detailed in the amendment sheet and agreed conditions.  That Officers have delegated authority to agree the final tree replacement contribution.