Agenda item

Construction of 22-storey building (c.68 metres) comprising 76 dwellings (Class C3) and ground floor commercial unit (Class A3) with associated storage facilities and public realm works; alterations/relocation of windows to 54d and 54e Arundel Street

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

Following the publication of the Committee papers, one further letter of representation has been received from the owner of 54D Arundel Street adding to their previously reported objection. The additional objection relates to the standard of insulation within their own dwelling and the potential impact of noise associated with the proposed balconies.

As set out within the Committee report, a planning condition is already proposed to address the potential impact of the development on the occupiers of 54D & 54E Arundel Street in terms of loss of light, outlook and privacy. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed balconies would be located in close proximity to the flank elevation and roof of these two properties, given their modest scale and location of the site within the city centre where a degree of noise is to be expected, it is not considered that the use of the balconies would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers.

Councillor Hugh Mason gave a deputation in support of the application.

Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link

https://democracy.portsmouth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=4552&Ver=4

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         Build To Rent as defined by National Planning Policy & Guidance (NPPG) supersedes guidance in the council's own policies. It is a form of affordable housing that has not been seen before in Portsmouth. Properties are managed by a single owner who rents units to individuals at a market reduction. Members cannot request the applicant takes people from the council's housing waiting list but under planning conditions the applicant is required to give details of the affordable housing element, including eligibility and selection to ensure affordable units go to those eligible for it. Making an amendment to say the applicant should take people from the waiting list is an option to members but the proposal does not suggest it as a recommendation as the provision of affordable housing offered is 25% (more than the required minimum of 20%). It could be considered that the additional number of units outweighs any requirement to take people from the waiting list.

·         The same applicant has submitted an application to develop Brewery House (19/01910/CS3). Five units in Arundel Street will represent Brewery House's provision towards affordable housing.

·         A family home as defined in PCS19 is one with three or more bedrooms. The number of family dwellings required depends on the site location and type of accommodation. The proposed mix of units is considered suitable for the Arundel Street location and likely residents. Thirteen out of 76 units have three bedrooms which is approximately 16% of the total.

·         As with all applications it is irrelevant whether the applicant is a private developer or not. Officers are satisfied that the Arundel Street application is compliant with affordable housing policy. It is always open to developers to transfer affordable housing from one site to another or even to third parties but the uplift is higher with off-site properties. Members have to assess the Arundel Street application on its own merits. 

·         There is no need for an affordability assessment as officers are satisfied affordable housing policy is being met with regard to the Section 106 agreement so no development appraisal has been submitted for viability; this is required only where developers are unable to fund policy requirements. The developer proposes to exceed the affordable housing requirement, depending on the outcome of the Brewery House application.

·         Officers have received full comments from the Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service and a series of informatives will be incorporated into the design.

·         A condition enhances biodiversity though additional planting around the site and on the balconies. There is no evidence of peregrine falcons but bird and bat boxes will be provided.

·         The "green roof" is part of the biodiversity and wind mitigation strategy to ensure comfortable wind levels around the building. It is not intended as an amenity for residents and it is also near bedrooms and living rooms so it is not accessible to residents. External space is provided by balconies.

·         There will be a degree of disruption for the occupants of 54D and 54E Arundel Street when their windows are moved from the side to the front of their properties. The LPA is aware discussions have taken place and a site visit took place with two surveyors. The timescale of the work is not known yet. However, disruption will be mitigated by the improved outlook from the new windows which will give on to the street.

·         Officers have sought assurance from the applicant that the planters on the balconies will be maintained as they are an integral part of the building's design. The applicant has confirmed their intention to continue with the "greening" of the building. Planters will be maintained by a remote irrigation system which does not require access through individual flats. Residents will be made aware this is a feature of their flats. An advantage of having the flats under a single ownership is continuity in maintaining the planters. Even if they failed, it is still an attractive building.

·         There is no communal space other than the cycle store and entrance.

Members' Comments

·         The building has a good appearance and improves the Arundel Street area. Having more people living in the city centre above shops revitalises high streets and makes them more viable. It was helpful seeing the application in conjunction with the Royal Mail site.

·         There was some concern about the financial viability of the building bearing in mind that each unit costs about £300,000 to build. The development may become a debt burden for the council, particularly if the property market is volatile.

·         The development uses a different funding source from social housing which is why applicants are not taken from the housing waiting list. It needs to make commercial sense for the council to proceed as they are borrowing money to build it.

·         It would beneficial to have a councillor on the Ravelin Group (the developer) as well as officers on both the housing company and the parent company.

·         The lack of parking is a concern and it is unfeasible that over 200 people might share cars. However, electric car and cycle schemes are promising and the building is very close to rail and bus links.

·         There are not many family homes in the mix of units so likely residents may be graduates who are attracted to regenerated areas. The lack of three-bedroom units in the affordable provision is unsatisfactory. It is unacceptable to criticise lack of housing but not take people from the waiting list. The Assistant Director Planning explained that according to the NPP Guidance local authorities should refrain from having direct nomination rights from their housing list. However, authorities may wish to suggest potential candidates from the lists, taking into account the affordability of the homes to those on the lists. Therefore, there is the opportunity and flexibility to suggest relevant potential candidates from the housing waiting list under planning condition 19 or a Section 106 agreement.

·         The lack of communal space and lack of access to the "green roof" are disappointing as there are fewer opportunities for residents to meet. The "green roof" could have been an opportunity for people to work together and perhaps form a residents' association.

·         The environmental features such as trees, planters and heat pumps are a positive aspect of the building.

·         In some cities high-rise living and "cities in the sky" are now the norm.

·         The proposed acid yellow colour of the cycle store is unattractive. The ground floor could be an opportunity to display art work.

RESOLVED

Permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth.

Councillor Lee Hunt joined the meeting at 3.30 pm.