Agenda item

Conversion of existing building to 16no. student studio apartments with two storey extension to the side/east elevation, first and second storey extension to the rear/north elevation, and single storey rear/north extension following the demolition of the single storey projections. [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered an application by Alastair Cliffe for the conversion of existing building to 16no. student studio apartments with two storey extension to the side/east elevation, first and second storey extension to the rear/north elevation, and single storey rear/north extension following the demolition of the single storey projections.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application and explained the plans.

[4.38 pm Cllr Vassie joined the meeting.  He did not take part in the discussion or decision making for this item.]

Public Speakers

Cllr Melly, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application.  She urged refusal due to the loss of a community asset and inadequate marketing.  She raised concerns regarding the harm to the building, an unsuitable design and noted that the plans did not comply with planning policy with regard to refuse collection and drop off/collection space.

Emma Lancaster spoke on behalf of the applicant.  She first requested a deferral so that the applicant had time to address the comments raised in the officer report. She stated that independent advice had not been sought by CYC regarding the marketing and valuation of the property.  She noted that the site had not been in use since 2017 and the proposal would provide a similar level of employment as a pub or similar community venue. Student accommodation would offer significant public benefit and should be given positive weight in the planning balance.

In response to questions from Members she reported that cleaners, management staff and security would be employed as part of the student management plan.  Space was set aside for refuse collection and details would be included in the operational management plan.  They had not undertaken any community engagement.  They had carried out a theoretical appraisal based on red book values; it also reflected the holding costs incurred. The marketing issue had not been addressed as the agent had not been made aware of concerns.

Officers responded to further questions from Members and reported the following:

·       The applicant must demonstrate that the building could no longer serve the community function, through meeting need or financial viability, and there should be no market interest. The price set needed to be justified and the agent needed to evidence that the property had been marketed appropriately.

·       Members of the public reported that offers had been turned down.  There was nothing to suggest that the applicant’s outlay could reasonably lead to a £600k valuation.

·       Biodiversity issues and refuse collection could be covered by planning conditions.

·       The main concern was the lack of marketing for the premises to be sold at a reasonable price to be run as a pub.

Following debate, Cllr Warters moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Fenton.  Members voted unanimously in favour of the motion and it was:

Resolved:                       That the application be refused.

Reason:                         The proposed development is considered to be within a sustainable location. In assessment of Heritage Assets, the scheme would preserve the setting of the Conservation Area, and the setting of listed buildings within it, in addition the proposal would be of appropriate scale, form and materials and is not considered to result in harm or loss of an undesignated heritage asset. Impacts on archaeology are considered to be acceptable and can be mitigated by planning condition. The proposed development is not considered to result in harm to residential amenity or highway safety, nor would the proposal have an unacceptable impact on ecology on or adjacent to the site.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in NPPF paragraph 11 therefore applies. There is evident demand for purpose built student accommodation and the NPPF requires planning decisions give “substantial weight” to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for housing (which includes student accommodation).  

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF sets out, among other things, that planning decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued community facilities (including pubs), particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs. This stance is echoed by policy HW1 (Protecting Existing Facilities) of the Draft Local Plan (2018). The NPPF at paragraph 38 states that the LPA should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account local business needs and wider opportunities for development (paragraph 81). This stance is echoed by policy EC2 (Loss of Employment Land) of the Draft Local Plan (2018). It is not considered that the site has been reasonably marketed and as such there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the facilities no longer serve a community function and demonstrably cannot be adapted to meet other community needs or are surplus to requirements; neither has it been sufficiently demonstrated that the facilities are no longer financially viable with no market interest.

[5.12 pm, Cllr Melly re-joined the meeting.]