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

This application relates to an application for the erection of new mixed-use development to comprise of one 10 storey building fronting Mirabel Street to accommodate 45 no. Use Class C3 residential apartments (9 no. 1-bed studios, 27 no. 2-bed 3 person apartments and 9 no. 2-bed 4 person apartments) and 8 no. residential car parking spaces  at ground level and one part 10, part 14 storey building fronting Great Ducie Street to accommodate 84 no. Use Class C3 residential apartments (31 no. 1-bed 2 person apartments, 26 no. 2-bed 3 person apartments, 18 no. 2-bed 4 person apartments and 9 no. 3-bed 5 person apartments) and 345 sq. m of commercial floor space at ground level (flexible use Use Class A1 shop, Use Class A2 financial and professional services and Use Class A3 cafe/restaurant) together with creation of roof terrace amenity space, cycle parking, access, servicing and associated works following demolition of existing building

The Planning Officer provided an update, as reported in the late representations received. The report referred to representations received from ward Councillors to object to the development for the reasons that:

It is an overdevelopment;

The proposed building is too tall and fails to meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN2;  

The development would cause overlooking;

The development does not appropriately reflect the character of the area;

The proposal harms the setting of heritage assets;

The development would strain local roads;

The proposal would promote crime and anti-social behaviour;

The proposal does not address the existing and future deficiencies in physical, social and green infrastructure;

The proposal fails to meet Core Strategy Policy H8 and mixed communities (H1).

One further objection had been received.

The late representation report included amendments to the conditions and additional conditions.

The Chair invited the objector’s spokesperson to address the Committee. The objector’s spokesperson referred to the area of the proposal and suggested the Committee visit the site. Reference was also made to the listed building on Mirabel Street which had not received a response from Historic England. The objector spokesperson stated that the responses that had been received from the developer on the issues raised by objectors were considered misleading and the comparisons given cannot be relied upon. The design of the building using a blue grey colour material, was not considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area which are predominantly red brick and would be an eyesore. Concern was expressed on the narrow street which is in a state of poor repair and causes access issues for vehicles and may result in issues for emergency vehicle access. The area suffers from vehicles parking on the pavement and the number of vehicle journeys would increase as a result of the development. There are concerns on the lack of light already for buildings adjacent. A request was made that if agreed the undertakings proposed by the applicant are taken up.

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

Councillor Davies addressed the Committee to oppose the application as a Ward Councillor and then left the meeting for the consideration of the application.

The Planning Officer reported the in response to points raised: the roof terrace element of the proposal would be carefully controlled by a condition (Condition 14). The location of the bin store access gates provides to best access to the premises and the Condition will require this is managed properly. A further condition could be added to the address the issue of pavement parking by installing bollards. It was reported that the area of the development does not hold any heritage status, although there are listed buildings within the vicinity. The Committee was informed that this is a development site and is on a major access road into the city centre. The Committee has also previously agreed to a seventeen-storey building in this location.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions.

A member of the Committee referred to the previous 106 agreement made in 2007 and asked officers to provide more information. Officers were also asked to clarify the contribution to affordable housing, although no reason has been provided on why no affordable housing is being provided on site. Reference was made to a condition being added to introduce bollards and if this would increase access and egress from the area.

The Planning Officer reported that information would be provided on the details of the 106 agreement. The contribution for affordable housing is £615,000, as stated in the report. In response to the installation of bollards and the impact on access, the Committee was informed that accessibility or obstruction issues on the highway would be subject to enforcement action. The Committee was informed that the application had received an independent viability appraisal, that is publicly available, which had identified £615,000 allocation for affordable housing.

A member referred to the provision of electric vehicle charging points and asked officers if additional points were required in the development, in view of the phasing out of new diesel and petrol cars by 2030. 

The Planning Officer referred to the sustainable location of the site which would reduce the need for vehicles and the need for resilience within the development to provide additional charging points for future use.

Councillor Leech proposed a Mind to Refuse the application based on the lack of affordable housing within the application and for the reason that the application is an over development. The proposal was not seconded.

Councillor Andrews moved the recommendation to be minded to approve, subject to an additional condition to address parking issues through the installation of pavement bollards to prevent pavement parking and improve vehicular access to the development. Councillor White seconded the proposal.

Decisions

The Committee is minded to approve the application, subject to a legal agreement in respect of a reconciliation payment of a financial contribution towards off-site

affordable housing and subject to an additional condition to address parking issues through the installation of pavement bollards to prevent pavement parking on Mirabel Street.

(Councillor Davies declared a prejudicial interest and spoke as a ward Councillor and then left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the application.)