Agenda item

Deputations were made, firstly by Mr Jillings as the applicant's agent in support of the application, whose points included:

·         this application was in line with planning policy framework

·         there had been extensive pre-application discussions in which the applicant had sought to respond to comments

·         the design respected the landmark building and key gateway site and would improve the city centre

·         there had been a public consultation exercise in November where there was support expressed for student accommodation at this site to help free up housing elsewhere in the city

Councillor Luke Stubbs, the Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development then spoke to make comment, whose points included:

·         this site had been the subject of 2 previous applications which had been the subject of criticism, however this represented a better design solution

·         this would make a positive contribution to the city centre and would bring back into use a derelict building

·         there is not the demand for office use although employment use would be welcomed

·         student use would free up housing elsewhere and would help the University of Portsmouth to compete

·         he was critical of the current CIL regulations which meant that via a loophole there would be less return from this site (£1.7m rather than £3m)

Members' Questions

Members asked if the 29 car parking spaces would be sufficient for the development for 1000 students; it was reported that development was located in perhaps the most accessible part of the city with good bus and rail links and in close proximity to the main university buildings. Tenants would be advised that there is no parking available to them and, given the local on-street parking controls, limited alternative parking facility. Policy provided for the approval of car-free developments within this locale although spaces were to be provided to meet the demands of students with mobility needs and for staff parking. The species of replacement tree (it was suggested this be evergreen) was queried and their location in the park.

Members asked about the city-wide student accommodation provision and the University's desire for providing hall accommodation for all 1^st year students and it was reported the there is also a demand for 2nd and 3^rd year students, and in 2014 it was calculated that only 75% of 1^st years were in halls, but there were other schemes with approval, some of which were under construction, so the current estimate was for 90% in hall.

The Traffic Engineer was questioned about the likely traffic generation and impact on the Unicorn Gate junction, especially on the student change-over days; in response it was reported that it was estimated that the student use would generate less traffic in peak periods than the previous office use and was well related to sustainable transport modes. Whilst there was a concern regarding student changeover this is a relatively infrequent occurrence and a specific management plan with contingency arrangements had been requested and would form part of the Section 106 agreement.

In response to questions regarding whether the amenity harm to Victoria Park could be a reasonable reason for refusal the City Development Manager reminded members that this was a judgement of balancing the perceived harm with the benefits of the whole scheme.  The movement and layout of pathways within the park was also questioned; two paths were being re-sculptured to tie in with the new access path. 

The impact on local health services and the uncertain future of the Guildhall Walk walk-in centre was raised, as well as the capacity of the sewerage services.

The acceptability of the design was explored and the complementary nature of the two buildings and its junction; the design had evolved from the 3 options that had been consulted upon. 

Members' Comments

Whilst members were supportive of the application there was discussion regarding whether to add extra conditions.  They welcomed the bringing back into use of the currently derelict building which was an eyesore. There were some concerns regarding sewerage, traffic on changeover days and the impact on the pathways if needed to be realigned within the park.  It was reported that the developer would pay for the access to the park and the changes to the footpaths around the focal tree and that the Parks Manager did not support an additional footpath change that would be at the expense of the local authority.  The committee wished to register its displeasure at the CIL restrictions which limited the financial benefit of the scheme.

Members welcomed the use of the site for student accommodation which would free more homes for families in the city and felt that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any negative impact on the park.  The conditions were not amended but the City Development Manager undertook to alert members regarding the discharge of conditions relating to the sewerage.

RESOLVED:  

(1)  That delegated authority be granted to the City Development Manager to grant Conditional Permission* subject to first securing the completion of a legal agreement (pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980) with principal terms as outlined in the report and such additional / amended items as the City Development Manager considers reasonable and necessary having regard to material considerations at the time the legal agreement is issued;

(2)  That delegated authority be granted to the City Development Manager to add / amend conditions where necessary:

(3)  That delegated authority be granted to the City Development Manager to refuse planning permission if the legal agreement, pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, has not been completed within six weeks of the date of the resolution pursuant to Resolution 1.

*(Conditions as set out in the City Development Manager's report.)