Agenda item

The Principal Project Manager (Development) presented the application for demolition of existing buildings and re-development to provide student accommodation (Sui Generis), ancillary facilities, and ground floor uses in classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), D1 (non-residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure), with cycle parking provision and public realm improvements.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) advised that the Community Infrastructure Levy figure payable under the heading “Financial Considerations” should read £934,132.92 not £933,303.84 and set out suggested change to condition 9 in respect of the Construction and Environment Management Plan. He also reported that the reasons for conditions 7 and 8 should read “to protect controlled waters and human health.

Ms Goddard spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

·         represent the Deltic Group as General Manager of Unit 1;

·         Deltic Group has operated this very successful late-night leisure venue since June 2007 opening between 10.00pm and 2.30am Mondays to Thursday's and to 3.30am on Fridays and Saturdays. It has a capacity of 850 people and the site has operated as a licensed venue since before 2000; 

·         the immediate local area has always had a mix of commercial businesses which generally traded during the daytime and were closed at night. Local residential properties existed beyond the immediate area and so, historically, have not been affected by the club. This situation recently changed with the approval of a large student accommodation complex on the adjoining site at Townsend Printers in Western Way, Exeter. Noise surveys undertaken were totally inadequate for purpose and the noise attenuation measures within the new development have proved to be totally inadequate. This has generated noise complaints from the occupants of the new student accommodation;

·         the principal concerns with the current planning application relates to the potential for future noise and disturbance to new residents at the application site. Unit 1 lies immediately adjacent to the application site and complaints from future residential occupiers of the application site could lead to calls for possible restrictions on the business and opening hours. Proper consideration needs to be given to this critical issue, in order to avoid creating another land-use conflict comparable to the decision on the Townsend Printers site;

·         Paragraph 123 of NPPF requires planning decisions to recognise that existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established;

·         further consideration needs to be given to the proposed development of 588 residential bedrooms, as there would be a clear conflict between the nightclub and the residential units.  The imposition of conditions has failed to address the noise issues raised at the Townsend Printers site and may similarly be insufficient in this case.  The issue of potential noise impact is fundamental to the principle of development in this case;

·         refer to the recent High Court decision on 8 September 2015 relating to proposed residential development adjoining KoKo nightclub and live music venue in Camden. High Court Judge Mr Justice Stewart criticised the local planning authority because noise impact had not been adequately assessed. The grant of planning permission for the proposed residential development was quashed and the Council was required to pay the claimant's full costs;

·         the consideration of noise impact is key and the High Court ruling confirms that the concerns raised by the Deltic Group are material considerations;

·         neither the Planning or Design and Access Statements that accompany the current planning application make detailed reference to the adjacent late night use and provide no details of the requisite significant attenuation works required to protect the amenities of future residential occupants;

·         Deltic Group has appointed specialist acoustic consultants to review the submitted Noise Assessment Report.  The Report is considered to contain a number of failings including taking a noise survey on a Tuesday night whereas music noise is generally louder with more bass content on other nights, the noise survey does not adequately take into account music break-out from the lightweight night-club roof, some of the maximum results quoted in the report appear incorrect and the calculated external levels have not been determined for all accommodation façades facing the courtyard, some of which will be exposed to music break-out and patron noise from the night-club;

·         music break-out from the lightweight night-club roof does not appear to have been considered;

·         recommended acoustic requirements for windows and trickle vents, and the resultant internal levels have not been determined for all accommodation façades facing the courtyard; and 

·         overall, the night club use has not been adequately addressed in the submitted Noise Assessment, with the risk that future occupants will be exposed to excessive noise, contravening paragraph 123 of the NPPF. 

Responding to Members’ queries, she advised that about 20 complaints relating to noise and disturbance had been received from the occupants of the student flats at the Printworks in spite of triple glazing and internal ventilation. Windows were often left open and the noise related to both music breakout from the club and disturbance in the streets.

Mr Yeates spoke in support of the application. He described the scheme and the pre-application and application process and engagement.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

§ the need to address problems associated with noise had been recognised from the outset of the scheme and discussed with Council officers. Appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated in the scheme including triple glazing and internal ventilation to protect future residents. It was also important that the development itself did not impact on neighbouring properties. The necessary mitigation measures were covered by condition;

§ will continue to engage with the University given that students are being accommodated and this will include discussions on cycle related issues;

§ discussions have been held with the County Council Highways Engineer regarding off site works relating to the highways including a pedestrian crossing;

§ with regard to consultations with Unit 1 representatives, there had been dialogue regarding survey work and some discussion over the past week but not a one to one meeting. Will undertake to consult with Unit 1 after the meeting;

§ a travel assessment and travel plan have been undertaken and discussed with highway officers including potential cycle routes to the University campus and elsewhere. Provision is being made within the site for cycles and cycle parking stands are to be provided as part of street furniture in the vicinity; and

§ with regard to students bringing cars to the City, the management of dropping off and picking up students at beginning and end of terms will be included within the management of the site and the responsibility of the Management Company, the applicant working with such companies across all its student accommodation sites. The importance of robustly discouraging students from bringing cars is recognised and a key role for the management company will be to maintain good relations with neighbouring areas and to ensure on-going dialogue with local residents. A wholescale ban on students bringing cars would be difficult to enforce and police so feedback on any problems in this regard would be welcome.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) advised that highway improvements would be secured by a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 including a pedestrian crossing but that this would not conflict with any other highways works considered more appropriate in relation to and part of other forthcoming developments in the area.

The Section 106 Agreement proposed would also require:-

·         a district heating contribution of £86,447;

·         a student management plan;

·         the provision of off-site highway works; and

·         a contribution towards Traffic Order costs;

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Members recognised the issues raised in relation to noise and car parking but were of the view that these would be associated with student developments in any part of the City and, in respect of this application, would not be overwhelming to merit refusal. However, considerable concern was raised regard the scale and massing of the proposal in terms of both its impact on the immediate area and with regard to views from other parts of the City. Although there was support for certain aspects of the design, such as the internal courtyard, it was not thought that the current proposal was acceptable given the overbearing nature of the height and size of the blocks. 

RESOLVED that the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide student accommodation (Sui Generis), ancillary facilities, and ground floor uses in classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), D1 (non-residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure), with cycle parking provision and public realm improvements be DEFERRED, for the applicant to have an opportunity to provide a revised proposal with differing and reduced scale and massing.