The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee deferred consideration of this proposal on 31 May 2022 to allow them to visit the site.

This proposal was for a 15 storey building comprising 54 apartments (Use Class C3)

with associated residential facilities (residents lounge and terrace and office space), 2 car parking spaces and 57 cycle parking spaces, landscaping, access and associated development.

There were 31 objections and 1 letter of support. The objections related to: design and scale, townscape, affordable housing, amenity including sunlight and daylight, privacy and living conditions of adjacent residents, traffic, highways and parking provision, loss of trees and biodiversity and the consultation process.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there had been a late representation from a Ward Councillor and 2 others from local residents, stating luxury accommodation, corporate greed, and the units would likely remain empty.” Further comments expressed that this was an “amazing green area of Piccadilly” and that this “hideous tower will disrupt” the area.

No objectors attended the meeting.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

A Ward Councillor explained that the Committee had already gone through the major points last month, adding that the developer mentions trees as “low value,” which the Councillor stated was incorrect as they are of ecological value. The developer had already cut down 30 trees ahead of the application expressed disdain at this. It was agreed that something should be built on the site and noted that the previous application was one third of the massing of this application, adding that the proposal was aesthetically unappealing and would be a disruption to homes in there area, some of which have been there since 1991. This tower would change the housing type of this area and none of these concerns had been addressed. The Ward Councillor stated that the scheme was too large with no decent amenity, could make a profit whilst making a contribution and requested that the Committee vote as Minded to Refuse.

Councillor Lyons addressed the Committee as Local Ward Councillor and thanked the Committee for agreeing to a site visit. Councillor Lyons mentioned the removal of 30 trees, the small site on a slope and potential placing of a 15 storey tower within a community and zero on-site affordable housing as major detracting factors. The tower was too tall and would dominate the area, the gold cladding was not in keeping with the red brick feel of the area. In conclusion, Councillor Lyons stated that there were 4 reasons for a refusal set out in the report and hoped that the developer could return with something more suitable.

The Planning Officer stated that this was only 2 storeys taller than the previous scheme considered for this site with a similar impact. There are other glass, steel and stone buildings in the area and this was a high quality material of good design. The figures in the report are clear and from an independent source, stating that the scheme cannot support on-site affordable housing. The cost of replacing the trees would have to be taken from the affordable housing contribution due to the viability assessment concluding that the scheme would be less than 20% profit.

A member stated that they accepted the assessment and were happy to see the disable parking issue now dealt with but felt that the loss of trees was significant. The member could agree the recommendation in the report with 2 additional conditions to replace trees at the developers own cost somewhere in the city and to have a discussion around colour of the cladding.

The Planning Officer stated that colour is a subjective issue and that if members require the replanting of trees in the highway, the cost would be around £7k per tree but felt certain there could be a contribution towards this.

Councillor Flanagan moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve with two additional conditions; to replace the 30 trees somewhere in the city, but not in the footway and that the Director of Planning agree the colour in consultation with the Chair. Councillor Richards seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to agree the recommendation of Minded to Approve for the reasons outlined within the report with conditions as stated.

(Councillors Lyons addressed the Committee as a Local Ward Councillor and did not take part in the decision-making process).