Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Councillor Moore to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

 

·        the site being of significant historic importance and of ongoing public interest;

·        she enquired on the expected timescale for delivery of the redevelopment, given that the developer had referred to the timelines from the previous committee stage;

·        having a reputable developer with heritage experience was welcomed, but emphasised the need for clarity on public expectations; and

·        a timescale was needed on record and sought confirmation on when works were likely to commence and complete.

 

No Member questions were raised for Councillor Moore.

The Chair confirmed there were no public speakers registered to speak on the item.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for the redevelopment of the Royal Clarence, to include 25 new residential dwellings on the upper floors with part residential on the ground and part basement floor and commercial on the remaining ground and basement floor as a public house and restaurant.

 

Members received a presentation which included:

 

·        the application was for ground floor commercial units for a public house and restaurant, and 25 residential apartments above, creating a five and six storey mixed development use;

·        the applicants had submitted an updated phasing plan (Condition 4), which was found to be acceptable and would limit heritage harm;

·        the phasing schedule outlined when works were expected to commence and complete on the site;

·        a previous consent was granted for a similar scheme with ground floor commercial use and flats above, with a similar external appearance;

·        the current proposal included revised internal layouts, including a repositioned stair core, altered internal walls, larger lightwells and updated heritage considerations;

·        the site was a Grade II listed building, surrounded by multiple high-value heritage assets and was located within a central conservation and archaeologically sensitive area;

·        the buildings current condition was poor, having suffered fire damage, structural deterioration and water ingress;

·        the proposed apartments met national space standards and offered acceptable resident amenities and the development would be car free; and

·        the development would use obscured glazing, screening and noise controls to ensure there were no significant amenity impacts to neighbours.

 

The Principal Heritage Officer advised:

 

·        he had visited the site repeatedly over the past six years, and his most recent visit he noted the extent of degradation and that the building was unsafe;

·        specialists now understood how and why the structure was moving, and how it could be remedied;

·        Heritage officers and historic specialists had worked closely with the developer in recent weeks to accelerate solutions and the proposed scheme was considered acceptable;

·        the developers could deliver a suitable resolution and urged Members to grant permission so work could begin as soon as possible; and

·        he would be closely involved throughout construction, providing advice and monitoring to ensure the heritage fabric was properly protected.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Management advised:

 

·        the Heritage impacts were of significant consideration, and officers and specialists had undertaken extensive discussions throughout the project;

·         the upper floors of the Well House were proposed for demolition down to the third floor level due to structural collapse and instability;

·        a new steel frame was proposed to support the remaining historic fabric and carry the reconstructed upper levels, and stabilising the existing wall spine and adjoining structures;

·        details on how the steel frame would integrate with original fabric were not yet finalised, but would be secured by a planning condition;

·        externally, the scheme was similar to the approved 2022 design, restoring the historic appearance facing Cathedral Green and Martins Lane;

·        the scheme included 25 market dwellings, with no on?site affordable housing, due to mixed ownership being difficult to deliver and high heritage and structural costs affecting viability;

·        off-site affordable housing and GP surgery contributions had been proposed;

·        due to significant financial constraints, a clawback mechanism was needed following completion to capture any surplus value;

·        currently there was a lack of five-year housing supply, which meant that a tilted balance applied in favour of sustainable development;

·        the public benefits included preventing further deterioration and returning the site to active use and the officer recommendation was to approve; and

·        the developer intended to start on the site between late January and early February 2026, subject to legal agreement completion.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementresponded to Member questions and clarification points as follows:-

 

·        there were some minor roofline alterations proposed compared with the 2022 approval, which was a small increase to a central roof area;

·        the overall design remained similar to the 2022 approval and Historic England had not raised any objections;

·        additional flats would be created by reducing the size of some larger units from 3-bed units to 2-bed units;

·        all flats would meet space standards;

·        there would be sufficient fire exits, which would be assessed by Building Regulations, and discussions with building control was already underway;

·        the viability assessment showed that the scheme could not support affordable housing or GP contributions at this stage;

·        a further viability reassessment through the clawback mechanism would determine what contributions could be paid once the scheme was built and the sale prices were known;

·        there were no delivery time restrictions included in the conditions, but noise controls did apply;

·        deliveries were usually encouraged for early mornings or evenings to avoid conflicts with Cathedral Green footfall;

·        small parcel residential deliveries were not regulated through planning, but commonly occurred during normal working hours;

·        a Construction Management Plan had been submitted and conditioned for construction, working hours restricted to 8am–6pm weekdays, 8am–1pm Saturdays, and no Sunday or bank holiday work;

·        the contractor compound would be located at the front of the site, and any extension to the compound required an agreement with the Council or Cathedral;

·        bin storage would be located at ground floor level, accessed from Martin’s Lane, which was considered suitable by the waste team;

·        management conditions would ensure bins were ready for collection and not left on the street;

·        the developer submitted an Energy & Sustainability Statement advising that the scheme would likely achieve policy requirements for CO² reduction. A post-completion energy statement would be required within three months to confirm actual performance; and

·        restricting Saturday construction times was technically possible but rarely imposed. A strong justification would be needed to restrict standard permitted hours and could be considered unreasonable and would extend the overall build time.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

 

·        supported the proposal to restore the look and feel of Cathedral Green and regenerate a long-vacant city centre site;

·        the development would deliver new housing, particularly sustainable homes in a central location;

·        there were some concerns about construction impacts, especially disruption to Saturday mornings and city centre activity;

·        the complexity of the site was highlighted, including high costs and challenges following the 2016 fire;

·        the homes would not be low-cost or starter units, due to the expense and complexity of redevelopment;

·        the developer was commended for committing to the project and working closely with council officers;

·        there was an emphasis on urgency, with calls to complete the development quickly to reduce impacts on nearby businesses, tourism, and the wider city;

·        retaining the historic frontage was a respectful tribute to the original Royal Clarence building;

·        some heritage loss was acknowledged, but restoring an active, living frontage was important; and

·        the proposal was viewed as a necessary and hopeful step toward healing a long-standing wound in the city centre.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following concluding points:

 

·        the building was iconic, both for its historic significance and the narrative surrounding the fire;

·        officers had spent significant time working closely with the developer, professional teams, and Historic England to ensure the scheme was deliverable;

·        there had been a focus on remaining close to the original consented scheme while preserving as much historic fabric as possible;

·        structural integrity and building conditions were a concern, particularly due to prolonged exposure to the weather and the Well House and other elements had deteriorated more than expected;

·        the site condition was terrible in places, requiring intensive work over the past six months to stabilise it and the building was now stable and capable of being developed;

·        the development would require a carefully phased construction approach;

·        officers had applied a planning balance, acknowledging some loss of historic buildings;

·        the harm was assessed as less than substantial, and was outweighed by the benefits of restoring the iconic building; and

·        if approved, the expectation was for a rapid delivery, with work potentially starting in February 2026 and preparations were already underway on site.

 

The Chair moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED unanimously.

 

Application No. 25/0895:

 

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Service (City Development) to GRANT permission subject to completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

 

·        £1,284.72 per dwelling for recreational impacts on the Exe Estuary protected marine site.

 

Subject to a Deferred Contributions Mechanism:

 

·        35% Affordable Housing to be paid as a financial contribution of  £2,394,258.82;

·        £16,083 for expansion of oversubscribed GP surgeries at Barnfield Hill, Southernhay House, St Leonards Practice and St Thomas Health Centre; and

·        the conditions set out in the application report and supplementary information sheet.

 

Application No. 25/0896:

 

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Service (City Development) to GRANT building consent subject to the conditions as set out in the committee report and supplementary information sheet.

 

The meeting was briefly adjourned at 18:12 and resumed at 18:17.