Agenda item

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide for a mixed use development consisting of 3,879sq m (GIA) of a Car Hire Facility (sui generis use class) comprising of offices and 150 parking spaces and 873sq m (GIA) of office (B1 use class) floor space and 118 residential units (C3 use class), along with associated communal amenity space, children's play space, landscaping, cycle spaces, refuse storage. The building would consist of the following storey heights: - Rodney Street: part 5 and part 7 storeys;- corner of Rodney and Pentonville Road: 10 storeys;- Pentonville Road: part 5, part 6 and part 7 storey's with a setback floors at 8th  and 6th floor levels; and- Cynthia Street: 4 storeys with a setback 5th.

(Planning application number: P2014/1017/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The planning officer reported that the Site Allocation referred to in paragraph 11.16 of the officer report had been adopted and was no longer emerging.

·        At the time of the planning inquiry, the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies document had both been adopted and therefore the inspector would have given it more weight than if it was emerging (which was the situation at the time the scheme was appealed for non-determination).

·        A member raised concern about the ‘sui generis’ use class when there would be a low employment generating use. He referred to there being 38 employees within the car hire business (as expanded) and stated that if this was an office development, it could employ 297 people. A member raised concern that in terms of building regulations standard occupancy levels, an office would generate employment levels of one person per 6 square metres, a warehouse would have one person per 30 square metres and the proposed car hire business would have one person per 100 square metres.

·        Clarification was sought as to whether the concept of a ransom price was an accepted concept when considering site amalgamation practices within any viability guidance. The independent viability consultant (from BPS) explained that the guidance covered generic site amalgamation concepts but did not offer guidance on ‘ransom’ situations. While the ransom concept was not specifically supported by guidance, there was also no guidance to say that it was not appropriate.

·        17% affordable housing (by unit numbers) would be provided, 23% by habitable rooms. Policy sought 50% affordable housing.

·        The quality of the evidence supporting the applicant’s build cost figures was questioned. The BPS viability advisor explained that benchmarking was used. A BCIS cost analysis which used standard cost headings had not been used. This created a lack of clarity and a degree of interpretation was required. However any variance would have minimal impact as it was significantly less than the deficit of the scheme.

·        Members raised concern about the accuracy of some of the figures in the viability study.

·        Concerns about the height and massing of the previous scheme, privacy and overlooking had been addressed.

·        The planning officer advised that land use was not previously raised and was not considered by the inspector as a reason for refusal.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to refuse planning permission on the grounds of lack of affordability and employment use. This was seconded by Councillor Gantly and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of lack of affordable housing and employment use with the wording of the reasons delegated to officers.