Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2024 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 City Development Manager.

The Service Lead - City Development presented the application for Renovation, conversion and change of use from retail unit and office to form a co-living scheme of thirty-four units including communal facilities and a co-working office space, front extension with four floors, link building, public plaza on the existing car park and renovation of existing bridge link to New Bridge Street, reminding Members of the context, namely that:-

·         the Committee had approved the application on 25 January 2024;-

·         after the Committee's decision, the Environment Agency withdrew its initial objection;

·         communication had been received from the owner of a neighbouring site, expressing an ambition to develop their property and highlighting potential impacts of the Exeland House development on their future proposal, specifically regarding access, light, and the potential for construction disruption;

·         at the January 2024 planning committee discussions, a pre-application enquiry for The Old Vic (submitted in early 2023, with feedback provided in April 2023) was not mentioned, leading to concerns from the Old Vic's representatives about the comprehensive consideration of material factors in the decision-making process; and

·         further correspondence had been received – and responded to – from Ward Councillor Tess Read and from Expedite Planning Ltd, representing their client, Mr Will Miles.

He urged Members to focus on the issue at hand concerning recent correspondence rather than purely what had already been covered in January. He further advised that:-

·         the contention from the owner of the neighbouring plot was disputed by planning officers;

·         design solutions could be invited to mitigate;

·         the solution proposed by the owner of the neighbouring plot had been deemed unnecessary by officers, who added that reconfiguration would cause its own problems; and

·         throughout negotiations with Historic England, there had been no way of knowing that there would be objections for the neighbouring plot owners.

The Service Lead - City Development answered queries from Members as follows:-

·         Historic England had not been asked about the proposal from the owner of the neighbouring plot to move the building;

·         as far as he knew, the adjacent building wasn’t listed; and

·         any development on the Old Vic site would have to take neighbouring buildings into consideration.

Although not objecting to the application per se, Mr Will Miles, co-owner of the neighbouring site, had registered to speak; he made the following points:-

·         he was surprised when he found out about the Exeland development;

·         the Old Vic was quite clearly a brownfield site that needed developing;

·         the advice he had been given was to submit a pre-application enquiry as a matter of urgency;

·         his site and the site of thew proposed Exeland development were the last two sites on the street that had not yet been developed; and

·         he felt that he and the applicant could reach a better outcome by working together as neighbours.

Mr Miles responded as follows to queries from Members:-

·         he had not had any direct dealings with the applicant;

·         he had not received any correspondence from the Council and only found out about the Exeland application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The report of the City Development Manager was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

Councillor Vizard noted that, under 3.2 (23/0533/FUL - Stoneycombe, Matford Road, Alphington), reference was made to the “St Leonards Conservation Area” when it should have read “Alphington Conservation Area”. This would be rectified accordingly.

RESOLVED that the schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged be noted.