Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2021 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The Principal Project Manager and Acting Major Projects Team Leader presented the application for development of two Co-Living (Sui Generis) accommodation blocks, following demolition of existing shopping centre and pedestrian bridge, change of use of upper floors of 21-22 Queen Street to Co-Living (Sui Generis), and all associated works including parking, landscaping, amenity areas, public realm improvements, new pedestrian bridge and provision of heritage interpretation kiosk. (Revised)

The Principal Project Manager and Acting Major Projects Team Leader reported the detail of a revised application for the site, permission having been granted previously for a co-living block and hotel on the site, the developer now seeking to replace the hotel with a second block for co-living. He set out a detailed description of the site and surrounding area, including: site photographs, the location of Central and St David’s conservation areas, the location of listed and locally listed buildings, and the character of the surrounding built environment. He then presented the proposed scheme, including: layout plans, floor plans, elevations and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) views.

The report set out the following key issues:-

·         the principle of development;

·         affordable housing;

·         access and impact on local highways and parking provision;

·         design and landscape;

·         impact on heritage assets;

·         residential amenity;

·         impact on amenity of surroundings, air quality and trees and biodiversity;

·         contaminated land;

·         flood risk and surface water management;

·         sustainable construction and energy conservation; and

·         development plan, material considerations and presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Principal Project Manager and Acting Major Projects Team Leader set out the following key elements:-

·         demolition of existing 1980’s shopping centre;

·         two blocks of co-living accommodation plus change of use of upper two floors of 21-22 Queen Street into co-living accommodation;

·         a total of 383 bedspaces (132 more than previous scheme for co-living block and hotel);

·         Block 1 comprising 138 studios and 18 cluster flats with 107 bedrooms;

·         Block 2 comprising 133 studios;

·         21-22 Queen Street comprising five studios;

·         20% affordable housing provided with 55 studios and 21 cluster bedrooms with  priority to be given to essential local workers;

·         provision of  a new landscaped square and ‘pocket park’;

·         retention of the ramp with a new interpretation centre beneath to include promotion of the nearby City Wall Scheduled Monument in association with RAMM;

·         removal of four trees to facilitate access;

·         new pedestrian bridge across Paul Street;

·         improved access to City Wall;

·         Paul Street narrowed to two lanes with wider foot/cycleways and public cycle parking; and

·         the removal of 91 car parking spaces and with the retention of nine spaces for local businesses and two disabled spaces together with two Electric Vehicle car club spaces for co-living use.

The Principal Project Manager and Acting Major Projects Team Leader responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

·         the proposal for a new footbridge across Paul Street was an improvement on the existing bridge and improved permeability into the Guildhall Shopping Centre, although there were also alternative routes into the Centre;

·         the proposals for an active  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The Assistant Service Lead Planning presented the application for a proposed single-storey rear extension and alterations.

The Assistant Service Lead Planning referred to photos showing the extension attached to the garage of the Coach House, with the frontage to Bowling Green Road presented as a continuous stone wall and with a small courtyard located behind the garage of the Coach House. The photos also illustrated the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property.

He reported the following main elements of the proposal:-

·         a raised roofline above the garage with a window in the rear elevation that had been moved away from the boundary with the Coach House;

·         the provision of solar panels and conservation roof-light in the rear roof slope;

·         the roofline above the garage was to be raised to bring it in line with the main roofline of the house to run at one continuous level.  A window previously shown in the rear elevation had been moved further away from the boundary with the Coach House. There were two existing windows in this location, one of which was much closer to the boundary than the current proposed window;

·         small new windows were to be inserted onto the front roof and first-floor elevation; and

·         timber cladding to replace tiles hanging at the first-floor level.

The Assistant Service Lead referred to an error in the report stating that the reference to the roof height dropping down from the main roof by approximately 0.5 metres should read 1.13 metres. He referred to objections received relating mainly to the raised roofline above the garage and the relocated window and overbearing, overlooking and overshadowing.

The Assistant Service Lead advised that whilst there would be some impact from the raised roof on the amenity of the neighbour at the Coach House, it was not considered sufficiently severe to justify refusal.

Responding to a Member, the Assistant Service Lead advised that the construction hours set out in the conditions were standard as recommended by Environmental Health. They could be varied, but this was not advised as it might be open to challenge.

Jeremy Meadow spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

·         there was no objection to the main part of the amended application, and he appreciated the modifications;

·         the proposed first-floor extension was 1.13 metres in height, not 0.5 metres as set out in the report;

·         he was speaking on behalf of his mother as there would be a severe impact on her privacy; she is nearly 90 and has lived in the Coach House for 34 years. The house sat behind a solid stone wall with a sense of enclosure with a secure garage door and with a courtyard in front of the house with the courtyard used multiple times a day and was a significant part of her ability to continue to live independently;

·         overlooking – the proposed higher and larger windows, despite being further away, command more of a view of the courtyard and front of the house frontage than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for the approval of reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of planning permission ref. 19/1375/OUT (Outline application for up to 200 dwellings).

The Principal Project Manager set out a detailed description of the site and surrounding area and the development, including: site photographs and aerial views. He referred to the following key issues:-

·         the principle of development;

·         access/impact on local highways and parking provision

·         affordable housing;

·         the scale, design, impact on character and appearance and impact on biodiversity and heritage assets;

·         flood risk and surface water management;

·         sustainable construction and energy conservation; and

·         economic benefits and CIL/Section 106.

He also referred to the following:-

·         the allocation of the site is within the strategic housing allocation of the Monkerton and Hill Barton Master Plan;

·         the erection of 198 dwellings had been reduced from the originally applied for 200 as a result of negotiations;

·         the road running between the site and the proposed linear green space, and the adjoining consented housing development did not form part of the current proposal and had been consented as part of the adjoining Persimmon development;

·         the parking approach comprised a mixture of allocated and unallocated parking spaces, on-plot and right angle parking within in streets and a small number of parking courts;

·         open space was provided in the form of a linear area on the southern/eastern boundary of the site and would incorporate an equipped play area and combined pedestrian/cycle path that would link to other existing and proposed routes in the area;

·         detailed design matters raised by the Highway Authority and the submission of revised drawings and formal consultation responses, the Highway Authority stressing the need to maximise permeability with the wider Monkerton and Hill Barton Strategic Allocation; and

·         a late representation referring to the appearance of construction vehicles on site prior to determination which it was understood related to an adjoining site.

The Principal Project Manager responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

·         the space between dwellings on the plans represent car parking ports and parking standards meet requirements;

·         the quantum of play area at 11% is above the 10% requirement;

·         the sustainable energy provision will meet building regulation requirements and there will be a connection to the District Heating Network

·         there will be play facilities but there is not a community hall provided for as part of the wider site;

·         there will be permeability to existing footpaths and the cycle path that links into the Met Office;

·         the development is designed to facilitate a future bus route if the County Council and Stagecoach come forward with a proposal, although no route is currently planned; and

·         a policy complaint figure of 35% of affordable housing was proposed.

Councillor Wood, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

·         thanked the Planning Committee for previous decisions to protect the green spaces and hills defining the city and stated that he was not against the development in principle;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The report of the Deputy Chief Executive was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 30 November 2021 at 9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Bialyk, Morse and Williams.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 30 November 2021 at 9.30 a.m. The Members attending will be Councillors Morse, Sparkes and Williams.