Agenda item

Erection of offices (Use Class B1a/E) following demolition of existing building. [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered an application which sought the partial demolition of the existing buildings on site and redevelopment with 2960m2 office space.  The new building has 5 floors including basement and a small mezzanine area in the roof space.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  This was followed by an update following additional consultation with the Ecology Officer where it was noted that demolition should not take place during bird nesting season.  Accommodation should be made for bird and bat boxes.

Members asked officers a number of questions to which they answered that:

·     The scheme has been revised to an angled roof elevation to reduce the impact of the roof line on residents.

·     Plans for drainage have been conditioned within the report.

·     The noise impact assessment plan covers both noise from the music venue and the planned offices. This was in the list of approved drawings.

·     For a Deed of Easement, members were advised to delegate approval to officers, subject to having sight of an agreed document.

·     Officers would refer to Highways and confirm that the preference of the sub-committee was for a Pay and Display bay to be used for disabled parking rather than a RESPARK bay

·     Conditions 10-14 refer to the conservation response.

Public Speakers

Harkirit Boparai spoke in opposition to the application as both Manager of the music venue next door to the development and as a local resident.  He explained that he considered that the height of the wall would affect his residence and he also questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the green wall.  Sound checks take place from 4pm and there was concern regarding the impact of the building site on the operation of the music venue. Aesthetically, he felt that this proposal was out of character for the rest of the street.

In response to questions from members there were approximately 6 people living above the building. 

Ed Leyland spoke via Zoom in opposition to the application, as the owner of the music venue and as a resident.  He stated that the plans were out of scale to the rest of the buildings in the immediate vicinity.  He also raised concerns that the planned building would be detrimental to the living conditions of nearby residents. 

Neil Brown spoke in support of the application as the architect for the applicant.  He was supported by Philip Holmes, the planning consultant.  He explained that the design was developed in consultation with local residents and businesses and made use of an existing brown field site.  The revised design had addressed previous concerns of residents, with the decreasing roof line and noise mitigation plans.

They confirmed the following in response to members’ questions:

·        The green wall would be maintained by the applicant.  Residents of no. 8 could decide on how it would look.

·        The applicant would be willing to sign a deed of easement if that was deemed appropriate.

In response to further questions from members, officers noted that

·        A separate condition could be made for maintenance of the green wall.

·        Changes to the characteristics of an area should be part of the consideration.

·        A sentence could be included in the CEMP to cover the impact construction work on the operation of the music venue.

After debate, Cllr Galvin moved to approve the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Douglas.  The motion was carried and it was therefore:

Resolved:  That the application was approved subject to section 106 – varied conditions in the report and the following amended and updated conditions.

                             i.        Require submission of evidence of signed deed of easement

Amended and updated conditions:

                             i.        C2 – remove ref to Noise Impact Assessment

                            ii.        C5 – amend note to refer specifically to the impact on the adjacent music venue

                          iii.        C15 – remove reference to Green Wall, remove wording “within a period of 5 years”

New conditions:

                             i.        Implementation, maintenance and retention of green wall

                            ii.        Implementation of recommendations in the Noise Impact Assessment

Reasons:

                     i.        The presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within paragraph11 of the NPPF requires that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The policies referred to include those related to designated heritage assets which would include the Central Historic Core Conservation Area. It has been identified that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area through the loss of the existing building and as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

                    ii.        The proposal has been considered against the policies in Section 16 of the NPPF giving great weight to the asset’s conservation. Weighed against the small level of less than substantial harm identified to the CHCCA are public benefits relating to the provision of high quality office space providing jobs within a sustainable location. The bringing back in to use of a currently vacant brownfield site should, in accordance with Section 11 of the NPPF, be given weight as well as the sustainability benefits of a newly constructed building meeting current policy requirements in terms of carbon emissions and sustainable design.

                  iii.        The existing building is considered a non-designated heritage asset. The NPPF requires that when considering application which affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significant of the heritage asset. Here, it is accepted that the quality of the replacement building, combined with the other benefits identified, are sufficient to outweigh the loss of the non-designated heritage asset.

                  iv.        Other issues related to amenity, cycle parking and accessibility and drainage have been assessed and can be covered via condition. Subject to comments from the Council’s Ecologist, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions and S106 contributions for changes to TROs and travel plan monitoring.

[Cllr Galvin left the meeting at 20:49]

Cllr Crawshaw proposed deferral of the final item, 4e, this was seconded by Cllr Melly.

The committee voted in favour of deferring item 4e.