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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the erection of 15-storeys plus plant level building to provide purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA - Sui Generis) along with site preparation works, works over the public highway and other associated works.

16 objections had been received including 2 from local businesses who adjoin the site.

The Planning Officer noted that a long late representation had been circulated to the Committee and provided a summary of that document.

Two objectors attended, splitting the allocated four minutes, and addressed the Committee, the first noting that they were the owner of a neighbouring business. They stated that the construction process would force their business to close and were unsure if their business would survive a long closure. They think that pedestrian safety would be compromised during construction. The objector stated that the applicant had made no thought regarding the impact on local businesses. They requested that the Committee perform a site visit if they would not refuse the application.

A second objector stated that the Committee needed a site visit to understand the significant impact of the development and they could not make a decision without that. They raised concerns that neighbouring businesses had been ignored in the application. Concerns were noted regarding the lack of agreement with Euro Car Parks for an area for a compound. The objector felt that the neighbouring nursery had been ignored, with the proposal creating a barrier to it. They stated that there had been no engagement with the nearby Bracken House, where almost half of residents would lose daylight due to the application. They did not believe there was a need for this type of development in this area.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that they had proposed an appropriate use and design for the site. This was a prime location for PBSA as it was close to the Oxford Road Corridor. Expanding the PBSA offer would free up much needed family homes. The agent felt that the proposal could be constructed without harm to the area and would bring benefits. The applicant had proposed additional health and safety measures for the nursery, noting the concerns that remained. They accepted that there would be a temporary disruption in the area, but the impact would be minimised. They stated that all commitments made are assured by the Planning Conditions that would be attached to permission if granted. The applicant was open to continued dialogue with neighbouring businesses and residents.

The Planning Officer noted that the report before Committee was a lengthy one that provided enough information for them to make a decision. They stated that the impacts on neighbouring properties, the nearby nursery and on Bracken House had all been clearly set out in the report. Whilst an agreement had not been reached with Euro Car Parks, the Planning Officer noted that an alternative would be found if an agreement could not be made.

A member queried if it would be all windows at Bracken House that were impacted by the proposed development. It was confirmed that it would be half of the windows.

A member raised concerns regarding air quality and the engagement process. The Planning Officer stated that air quality and noise were planning issues and were set out clearly in the report. The impact regarding air quality and noise had been discussed with colleagues in environmental health and with mitigation they were satisfied that the impacts would be acceptable. In terms of communication, officers had gone well beyond their statutory requirements. The conditions on site will enable businesses to remain in place, but the Planning officer accepted there will be an impact. However, that impact would be managed and mitigated to an extent that officers are satisfied with. The site is a development site that if not developed, will be left as is which was deemed unacceptable. The Planning officer stated that if the purpose of a site visit was to see the nursery play area, that would be difficult from the public highway, and they suspected there would be safeguarding issues and they would not have rights to access the site.

The Director of Planning added that to resolve to complete a site visit, the Committee needed Planning grounds for that visit. They stated that the report already provided visuals of what would be seen on a site visit.

A member raised concerns about the impact of the development on the nearby nursery and young children’s health. They had concerns another nursery would be lost. Further concerns were raised regarding the consultation process.

The Director of Planning noted that the consultation process always goes above the statutory requirements.

The Planning Officer noted that Environmental Health had assessed the scheme and were satisfied with the impact. They noted that all Early Years concerns had been addressed in the report and confirmed as acceptable. The applicant had committed to a temporary ramp for access to the nursery, if approved by highways.

Councillor Hewitson proposed a site visit to see the proposal in the context of the adjacent buildings and businesses.

Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to defer consideration of the application, in order to undertake a site visit on the grounds of seeing the proposal in the context of the adjacent buildings and businesses.