Agenda item

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

Members were advised that the application proposal was being brought to the Committee due to its size.

The Case Officer summarized the report as follows:

·       The scheme proposed to redevelop the site and create a Purpose-Built Student Accommodation within a building ranging in height between 5 and 6 storeys. A total of 260 student bedspaces would be provided within a combination of studio and cluster flats. Also proposed is 237sqm of commercial floorspace within Class E use.

·       The site was located within the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone, which was allocated through the current local plan and where a wide range of uses, including residential, were envisaged.

·       In response to consultation two objections had been received and raised issues relating to the design of the scheme. There had also been letters of support.

·       The site was at risk of flooding, and the Environment Agency had provided comments on the proposal

and if the objection could be overcome, officers were seeking delegated authority to progress the discussions and to add conditions as necessary.  If the objection could not be overcome, the application would be brought back to committee for determination.

·       The proposal was considered to be of an acceptable height and scale within the context, and the degree of harm envisaged to heritage assets was considered to be outweighed by public benefits brought about

by the scheme.

·       In view of the constrained nature of the area, the applicant had put forward improvements to the road infrastructure and public realm, and a number of financial contributions were also to be sought via s106

Agreements and these were currently in the process of being negotiated.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and s106 agreement.

The following points arose from questions and debate:

·       Regarding safety and security measures the case officer confirmed that the proposal contained several measures and included a balustrade around the terrace, high security locks on the accommodation units and on-site CCTV cameras.

·       The accommodation was a mix of both self-contained and shared units.

·       There was no requirement for affordable homes for student accommodation.

·       The section 106 agreement contained a contribution from the University toward car parking although the proposal was primarily a no cars scheme.

·       The site did not have a Masterplan, this was considered when proposing to expand the campus however the Council could not resource the work required to do this. It was considered that a Masterplan was not required for this application proposal.

·       The applicant be asked to consider tree planting to provide shade in the courtyard areas.

Councillor Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Fi Hance, that the application be granted.

On being put to the vote it was unanimously - 

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the completion of a planning agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor Fi Hance left the meeting at this point.