Agenda item

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to:-

i)     The applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into a S106 Agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms annexed as Appendix 1 to this report, no later than six months from the date of this resolution; and

  ii)   the recommended conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing Church Hall and erection of a four-storey building to provide 54 bed student accommodation with associated communal amenity space, landscaping, car/cycle parking and refuse storage at St Clements Church Hall, Henwick Road.

Reason Why Being Considered at Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it is outside the scope of the adopted Scheme of Delegation.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

There were no late papers circulated.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application. A local Ward Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee.

Key Points of Debate

·        The local Ward Member commented on the significant level of local concern. He expressed the view that the proposed development was totally inappropriate in this location. Issues raised in his presentation included the significant and overbearing impact on the adjacent sheltered housing scheme, the suitability of the existing building for community use, the loss of residential amenity, disturbance from demolition and construction, lack of car parking, the existing cycling prohibition on Church Walk, the location of the cycle store, the size of the accommodation and the number of units, the lack of outdoor recreational space and the inappropriate mix of generations living next to each other. He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

·        The County Council Highways representative stated that a car parking management plan will be put in place, there are sufficient parking restrictions currently in the vicinity and it is accepted that this is a suitable location for a car-free development as students will not need to rely on a car for access to the university or associated facilities.

·        The Service Manager – Development Management responded to questions and comments from Committee Members. Matters raised included on-site parking for visitors, the size and number of accommodation units, the proposed colour scheme, the opportunity for car club parking, hours of operation during construction, arrangements for management of the site when occupied, the history of the site and provision of a heritage interpretation sign and provision of outdoor seating. The position regarding an NHS contribution was clarified.

·        The Service Manager advised that some of the matters raised are addressed by the proposed conditions.

·        It was proposed that the application be deferred to enable the applicants or their agent to answer questions. The Legal Team Manager advised that the Constitution currently prevented applicants from answering questions in person unless an objector has registered to speak. It was anticipated that this provision would change soon, as the rules on public participation at the Committee would be debated at the next meeting of the Council on 28 March.

·        It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the scheme is unacceptable in terms of scale and design, the number of accommodation units, the provision for visitor parking and the lack of on-site management.

The Head of Planning advised that, in view of the imminent change in the Committee Procedure rules, there should be an opportunity for the applicants and their agent to comment on the points raised and to answer Members’ questions at the next meeting. In the circumstances, the proposer of the motion to refuse agreed to withdraw the proposal at this stage. The proposal to defer was duly seconded.

There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who was eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal to defer the application was agreed as follows to enable additional information to be provided.

For - 6

Against - 1

Abstentions – 0

RESOLVED: That the Committee defer the application to enable additional information to be provided.

For voting purposes it was noted that Councillor Roberts joined the Committee meeting at the start of the next item.