Decision details

[Note 1:  The Committee were advised of an addendum].

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed-use development ranging in height to seventeen storeys, comprising GIA energy centre (flexible Sui Generis/Class B1), co-working space, two hundred and forty seven student and co-living rooms with shared kitchens and associated communal space, rooftop amenity space, in addition to associated landscaping, waste and ancillary spaces.  Installation of three thermal store vessels and ancillary infrastructure structures including above ground pipework.  Installation of subterranean district heating main and private wire electricity cables beneath Poole Road, Goldsworth Road and Church Street West (amended plans and description).

Councillor I Eastwood requested clarification of the flue height. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that it stood at sixty five metres above ground level, as determined by the height of the building.  It was noted that separate approval would need to be pursued for the CHP under the environmental regulations in regards to the flue.

Some Councillors had not been convinced that students would travel such distances to access proposed student accommodation. 

The Chairman reassured Members that the proposed accommodation would  not  be exclusively for students.  It was highlighted that the accommodation would attract a range of individuals including post graduates and small business owners.

The Planning Officer responded to a query on the potential noise generated from the CHP plant.  It was noted that recommendations in respect of noise management were outlined in detail in the report.

Councillor Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that whilst permission had been granted for the original proposed six storey building, he doubted that the proposed accommodation would be solely taken up by students.

The Chairman reiterated to Members that the proposed accommodation would not be aimed for students only.

Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, noted to members that not more than 20% of the proposed accommodation had been intended for students.  However, it would be more applicable to any other education or institution in the Borough currently or the near future.  Douglas Spinks pointed out to Members that the proposed application merely sought to provide an alternate type of accommodation which had the potential to help the current housing needs within the Borough.

Councillor Ashall requested clarification on the design review of the proposed application.

Chris Dale, The Development Manager referred the Committee to paragraph 41 of the report which stated that the proposal had been amended to respond to comments of the Design Review Panel.

Members continued discussions on the design of the proposals and considered that the development was of an unexceptional standard.  It was thought that there had been no significant changes made to the design since the previous proposal.

Some of Members of the Committee indicated that they were not minded to support the application and deemed the proposal to be unacceptable.  Councillor Morales proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor Boote that the application should be refused on the grounds of mass and bulk, poor design and insufficient parking.

Some Councillors noted that safety precautions had been addressed in the report. The Planning Officer advised that safety for occupants was not a planning matter and that the applicant would be responsible to follow necessary safety policies.

Douglas Spinks emphasised that the proposal had not been drawn up to provide a conventional housing proposition and sought instead to address a gap in the market that would help towards the building, sustaining and maintaining of a sustainability community.  It was further stressed that the applicant had set an indication that not more than 20% of the units would be occupied by students and that Thameswey would ensure that occupation was carefully managed to help in meeting the overall housing needs of the borough.  

Douglas Spinks also cautioned the Committee that refusing the application on design grounds would put the Local Planning Authority in a difficult position, as Members had been advised that the proposal had been the subject of a design review panel following which significant improvements had been made.  It was noted that, whilst individual Members might disagree with the proposed style, the Committee would find itself in a difficult position in the event of an appeal against refusal.

Peter Bryant, Head of Legal Services, advised Members that, as Planning Committee Members, they had to be mindful in considering and determining  the planning application of the material considerations of the proposal before them.

Following the debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In Favour:                                Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, N Martin and L Morales

                                                TOTAL:  4

Against:                                   Cllrs S Ashall, C Chrystie and I Eastwood

                                                TOTAL:  3

Present but not voting:            Cllr M Whitehand (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore refused.

RESOVLED

   That the planning application be refused.