Agenda item

Construction of part seven, part five storey building comprising 31 retirement living apartments (Class C3), 66 assisted living (Extra care) apartments (Class C2) with communal facilities, ground floor retail unit (Class A1) and associated car parking and landscaping.

Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson, Sandra Stockdale and David Fuller left the room during discussion of this item following their earlier declaration of interest.

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that two further objections had been received from residents on the grounds that retirement flats would be too expensive for local residents and a Co-op is unimaginative and detrimental to the area. One objector suggested that the site should be redeveloped to provide a visitor/tourist attraction to provide jobs and encourage investment in the Pier. The other objector suggested that the retail shop should be relocated to the side or rear of the site and not be sited on the seafront.

As referred to in the committee report discussions have been on-going with the applicant on the level of affordable housing contribution which could be borne by the proposed development without it becoming financially unviable. Following the review of the applicant's latest submission, a potential underestimation of sales values and an overestimation of other contributions was identified. The applicant has accepted this and as a result an additional £170,000 has been offered towards affordable housing. Together with the previous additional contributions the applicant is now offering a total affordable housing contribution of £267,779.45 together with other Section 106 contributions totalling £20,332.00. These contributions are accepted as being the most that could be achieved on the site with recommendation I being updated accordingly.

The City Development Manager also reported that following the publication of the committee report the applicant had requested that the timing of any review mechanism of financial viability be amended to be triggered 24 months from the date of any permission, and not 24 months from the date of any permission. The applicant suggested that the initially recommended trigger would not allow for any potential hurdles or delays that may be incurred in completing the S106 agreement and the subsequent issuing of a permission. Furthermore the applicant advised that the 24 month timescale is very tight on a scheme of this size. The applicant accepts that a review mechanism should be in place to ensure the timely implementation of any permission and not to place inappropriate burdens on a developer. It is considered that the applicants request is reasonable and it is recommended that the trigger for a review be amended.

Recommendation I in the committee report omits a necessary reference to the implementation of the travel plan and also includes a typographical error.

The planning permission which was granted on appeal for redevelopment of the Savoy Buildings site was accompanied by a unilateral legal undertaking securing planning obligations which became binding when the permission was implemented. There is a remaining obligation to provide affordable housing on site. If the development to which the current application relates were to be implemented, the remaining obligation of the previous legal undertaking would no longer serve a planning purpose, because the provision for affordable housing will be off-site with a developer contribution. Accordingly it is recommended that the legal agreement securing the planning obligations that are reasonable and necessarily related to the current proposal should also discharge the 2007 planning obligation in respect of provision of affordable housing (but not otherwise) under the provisions of Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

And finally for clarification it is proposed to add an informative advising that the highway works required by Condition 25 can only be secured through the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the developer and the City Council as Local Highway Authority.

A deputation was heard from Mr Pead, a resident objecting to the proposal, who included the following points in his representations:

·         This is a poor and bad plan.

·         McCarthy and Stone environmental report refers to a desktop study. On appeal the Inspector required a site investigation survey to be undertaken.

·         In 2007 the Inspector also limited the shop to 150sqm gross. This has now trebled.

·         The site is in one conservation area and is adjacent to another. It is very important that the development preserves and enhances the area.

·         The loading bay is out of character and incongruous on the seafront.

·         Character of the area is not retail.

·         The unloading of crates and wheeling them across the seafront thoroughfare is unacceptable.

·         There are convenience stores nearby at The Strand.

A deputation was also heard from Mr Bendinelli, on behalf of the applicant, who included the following points in his representations:

·         Members should support this enterprise.

·         This has an eco-benefit from retirement scheme to convenience store, and construction.

·         17-20 full time jobs when complete.

·         There is a need to provide housing for older persons.

·         This is a significant opportunity to contribute  towards housing needs in Portsmouth.

·         18 letters of support for the proposal.

·         It is an acceptable design and will improve the character of the area,

·         Existing derelict site is very negative and harmful.

·         Development will provide two specialist housing needs wholly in keeping with the area.

A deputation was also heard from ward Councillor Matthew Winnington, who included the following points in his representations:

·         This is a very important site for the city.

·         Local residents are mixed in their views. Some feel that this looks like a bland budget hotel, will not enhance or improve the conservation area, have questioned the convenience store, questioned the amount of car parking and the lack of storage provision for mobility scooters.

·         Other residents feel that the proposal enhances the seafront, the convenience store will be of benefit to local residents and visitors on the seafront and that the proposal will benefit the adjacent hotel.

·         Councillor Winnington asked members to think about the traffic and whether it would create more in the area, whether the loading bay will create problems, is it the right development for this location on this site, do we want retirement flats on the seafront, is retail appropriate for the seafront and is it right that there is no affordable housing on the site?

Members' questions

Members referred to the 'monolithic appearance' of the proposed building and asked how far the application has come in terms of addressing the concerns of the Design Review Panels. Members questioned the mixed use of the retirement flats with the younger noisier element of who would be attracted to the Pier and whether that mix would work, whether the proposed store size was of a concern, whether there was enough parking on site to accommodate staff, residents and visitors and asked where are the residents to be dropped off/picked up?

Members' comments

Members raised concern about the bulk of a not too interesting design and that the recess cannot be seen until you get to the site, the proposed building will not enhance the seafront scene and that the design could be further enhanced. Members were concerned about potential parking issues and the use of the loading bay with cars stopping to visit the retail store. Members felt that the design of the building needs to be the best and fit for purpose in such a prime location on the seafront. They felt there is also potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. Members were also concerned that not of the issues raised by the Design Review Panels had been fully addressed.

In response the City Development Manager explained that the mixed was acceptable and works elsewhere in the city. The development is in a flood zone and therefore residential at ground floor level is very difficult, hence there being retail.

The Highway Engineer responded by saying that the 17-20 staff will work on a shift system and with 31 retirement flats and 66 assisted living flats, there is potential for 31 car owners but highly unlikely that the assisted living residents would have a car. Therefore visitors parking is quite acceptable for a development of this size. There is also an undercover buggy park and cycle storage. The layby will be designed to look flush with the walkway so when not in use it will look like additional paving. It will also have double yellow lines to prevent parking. There are entrances from the car park so that vehicles can get close to the rear doors and lifts, which would be much nearer than if residents were dropped out side of the front of the development.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred so as to allow officers to negotiate and address further some of the issues raised by the Design Review Panels and members.