Agenda item

An AmendmentSheet wasprovided to the Committeein advance of themeeting, detailing changes since   the publication of theoriginal report.

The Officer summarized the report as follows:-

1.       The application was for Mixed-use redevelopment including 221 residential (C3) units and 651 sq.m. of commercial floorspace (Class E) on ground floor, together with a new vehicular access off Mead Street, cycle and car parking provision, private amenity space, servicing arrangements, landscaping, public realm, and associated works;

2.       The site lies within the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone as well as the area covered by the Mead Street Development Brief, which was recently approved by Cabinet and sets out a vision for the regeneration of Mead Street to deliver a new neighbourhood with a mix of new homes and workspaces, green space and sustainable travel options;

1.       There was significant opposition locally with over 300 objections and a 4000 signature petition objecting to the addition of height in the Mead Street area;

2.       It was recognised that the application would make a significant contribution towards the city’s housing delivery targets and included affordable housing;

3.       The scheme complied with policy on the provision of affordable housing, agreed

connection to the District Heat Network, biodiversity and tree replacements;

4.       Officers had been working on this proposal with the applicant for over a year and during the

process had raised a number of concerns relating to the overall design of the scheme. Revisions

had been made to the application however it was not considered that a good quality scheme was proposed that would successfully deliver on the overall aspirations for the area. In addition, it was not considered that the quality of the scheme itself justified the high density, level of harm that would arise, and the weight required to be placed on emerging policy for it to be

supported;

5.       Attention was drawn to the Amendment Sheet which detailed late comments received from HSE on the design of the basement. Officers had not yet had time to discuss this with the applicant;

6.       Officers recommended the application for refusal.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1.      Councillor Eddy expressed concern that the application was recommended for refusal by officers when no such concerns were expressed at a member briefing last month and after key stakeholders, including ward members, had worked with the applicant to bring the scheme forward. The Committee was informed that the Mead Street Development Brief had been approved on 2 August and officers had continued to work with the developers to bring a scheme that could be recommended for approval. However, the issues had not been addressed in time for bringing the application to this Committee date;

2.      The comments from the HSE had been received yesterday and were therefore contained in the Amendment Sheet and as a result there had not been time to discuss the comments with the applicant. It was not possible to condition as it would affect the scheme overall. It was for members to determine if the scheme was safe;

3.      Officers had not requested a viability exercise in relation to the height of the development;

4.      Councillor Hathway was concerned about the HSE comments and Transport Development Management issues and questioned whether the application should be deferred. The Head of Development Management replied that the application had come late to the agenda setting meeting and therefore it had not been possible to address the issues of concern in time. Technically the Committee could consider the application as set out in the report but there would need to be revisions regarding the HSE comments. If approved the building control process would deal with HSE concerns;

5.      The Head of Development Management, in response to a question about allowing more time to work through issues concerning the application, stated that the Planning Authority did not like recommending applications for refusal and sought to work with applicants to resolve issues so that the scheme could be supported. Unfortunately, this had not been possible for this application;

6.      62% of units were single aspect and 38% dual aspect;

7.      In response to a comment regarding the potential for an expensive appeal process if refused, the Head of Development Management replied that he shared those concerns. He appreciated there were many positives in the scheme but fully supported the officer recommendation which was defendable at appeal;

8.      It was confirmed that discounted market rent aspect to the development was not recognized as an affordable housing product by LA’s and it was therefore for the Committee to determine its weight. It was acknowledged that an application offering 30% affordable housing in the City Centre was extremely rare;

9.      The Transport Development Manager confirmed that highway safety was a concern but did not meet the level where there could be a road safety objection. It was considered that the alleyway was not wide enough for the amount of movement and was open to ASB;

10.   It exceeded the density in the Development Brief but this should be considered alongside design excellence. The Development Brief had specific requirements as there were lots of services planned and this would impact on footpaths;

11.  Councillor Eddy acknowledged that decisions on many applications which came before Committee were on balance after weighing up many elements. This was a rare development where key stakeholders had been consulted effectively and responded positively to comments. This was a well-designed scheme which met the strategic needs of the city and it was almost a miracle to secure 30% affordable housing in the City Centre from a private developer. It regenerated a brownfield site and was in a location where housing was needed. It improved road safety and its scale and height did not concern him. High standard schemes were important but officers recommendation for refusal was disappointing. He would be voting for approval;

12.  Councillor Varney liked the architecture and the location was highly sustainable but he agreed with officers findings regarding some aspects of design, height, single aspect units numbers, limited light and windows being bolted shut and he would not support approval;

13.  Councillor Hance welcomed the affordable housing but disputed that this was the only scheme on this site which could provide it. She objected to massing and felt it was a scar on the landscape;

14.  Councillor Jackson believed that the positives outweighed the negatives and hoped that the developer would work with officers to improve aspects of the scheme. He would support approval;

15.  Councillor Geater stated that the affordable housing offer was key to the scheme and if refused the application might return with reduced height and much less affordable housing. He would vote for approval;

16.  Councillor Hulme would vote for it on balance. There was a desperate need for affordable housing and she approved of the design and colour of the scheme;

17.  Councillor Hathway would vote for it on balance because of the urgency of the housing crisis but challenged the developer to do better;

18.  Councillor Plowden felt the design was not aspirational and was concerned about the hyper density, quality of accommodation and safety in relation to HSE comments. He would vote against approval;

19.  Councillor Hussain would vote for approval because of the desperate need for affordable housing;

20.  As per convention Councillor Eddy moved the officer recommendation and this was seconded and on being put to the vote it was lost – 3 for, 6 against. Councillor Eddy then moved that the application be granted subject to a S106 Agreement and officer recommendations including HSE comments. This was seconded and on being put to the vote it was:-

RESOLVED -  (6 for, 3 against) That the application be granted subject to a s106 agreement, conditions and officer recommendations including the HSE comments set out in the amendment sheet.