Agenda item

To consider planning application 20/0784 for the erection of a part three, part four and part five storey building, including commercial and residential basement storage, comprising ground floor retail, restaurant and betting shop (Use Classes E and sui generis) fronting Church Street and Abingdon Street and 19 self-contained (Use Class C3) on the upper floors accessed from Abingdon Street with associated refuse storage accessed from Back Church Street, following the demolition of existing buildings.

The Planning Committee considered planning application 20/0784 for the erection of a part three, part four and part five storey building, including commercial and residential basement storage, comprising ground floor retail, restaurant and betting shop (Use Classes E and sui generis) fronting Church Street and Abingdon Street and 19 self-contained (Use Class C3) on the upper floors accessed from Abingdon Street with associated refuse storage accessed from Back Church Street, following the demolition of existing buildings.

Miss Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report and the planning history of the site which had been formerly occupied by Next and then Pizza Express.  More recently the ground and first floor had been redeveloped as Vintro lounge with a new frontage and themed interior.  A previous submission at the start of 2020 had proposed 29 apartments in a part six and part seven storey building.  This had been considered to be over-development of the site, unacceptable and the application had been withdrawn.

The current application was made in full and sought to agree all details.  The proposed building would have a flat roof and the top floor would be set back.  The corner facing into St John’s Square would be four storeys high and different materials would be used on the corner to create a visual focus.  Lighter materials would be used to make a focal feature of the main entrance door on Abingdon Street.  The elevations would have a strong grid design with vertical emphasis and recessed balconies to create depth and visual interest.

Miss Parker explained that the site was within a very sensitive location within the Town Centre Conservation Area and was opposite both St John’s Church and the Winter Garden.  The scheme had been considered by Historic England, the Theatres Trust, the Council’s Built Heritage Manager and the Civic Trust.  The Civic Trust had objected on the basis of scale, however, the other consultees had supported the proposal in principle. In terms of scale, Miss Parker noted that long-standing Policy LQ4 and emerging Policy DM17 both required new buildings within the town centre to be at least four storeys in height and the scale proposed accorded with this.

In terms of parking, Miss Parker stated that no off-street parking could be provided, however this was considered to be acceptable giving the town centre location.  Cycle parking was proposed at basement level and refuse storage available to the rear of the building.  Internally the scheme would deliver 19 apartments comprising eight one-bed units and eleven two-bed units, which meant that only 58% of the flats would offer two bedrooms or more, as opposed to the 70% required by planning policy.  As the Council could demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at present, a tilted planning balance did not apply and the scheme should apply with adopted policy.

Miss Parker informed the Committee that no other issues relating to highways, drainage, ecology or amenity were anticipated and that the necessary planning obligations relating to local health care provision and public open space could be secured through a S106 legal agreement.

Miss Parker drew members’ attention to the Update Note and explained that the applicant had been asked to justify the housing mix through the submission of viability information, but to date no such assessment had been forthcoming.  Whilst the applicant had asserted that any change to the housing mix would render the scheme unviable, no evidence had been provided to the Case Officer, who had been advised that a full development appraisal had not yet been carried out. 

Miss Parker informed the Committee that whilst it was accepted that the proposal would deliver regeneration benefits, would contribute towards the borough’s housing land supply and that the design was now acceptable, the Case Officer was not comfortable to support a housing mix that did not accord with the policy in the absence of a robust justification.  Therefore, the Case Officer’s recommendation had changed and it was now recommended that Members resolve to support the scheme and defer the application to the Head of Development Management to approve, subject to the applicant submitting the appropriate viability information that is agreed by the Council’s Surveyor. If the information was not forthcoming then the application would be brought back before the Committee for consideration.

.

The Committee discussed the revised recommendation as explained by the Head of Development Management and in response to questions, Ms Clare Johnson, Principal Planning Officer, confirmed that she had requested the viability information twice and that it had not been provided.  Members discussed the need for the appropriate viability information to be submitted and considered, but instead of delegating the decision to the Head of Development Management, resolved that the application be brought back to a future meeting of the Planning Committee for determination once, viability information had been submitted.

The Chair informed Mr Ian White, who had registered to speak in objection to the item, that should be Committee decide to defer this item as noted above, he may wish to speak at a future Committee instead.  Mr White agreed to this course of action. 

Resolved:

That the application is deferred to allow the applicant to provide viability information and that once that information was received, the application would be brought back to a future Planning Committee.