Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site at 10 - 18 All Saints Street including the refurbishment and extension of 10-12 All Saints Street (including part roof extension and installation of rooftop plant and enclosure) to provide additional Class B1 business floor space with ancillary flexible Class A1/A3 (retail/restaurant) and flexible Class A1/B1/D1 (retail/office/non-residential institutions); demolition of 14, 16 and 18 All Saints Street and erection of a part 5 (ground plus 4) and part 6 (ground plus 5) storey building with basement and rooftop plant and enclosures providing Class B1 office floor space and flexible Class A1/A3/B1/D1/D2 (retail/restaurant & cafe/business/non-residential institutions/assembly & leisure) floor space at ground floor; and associated hard and soft landscaping.

(Planning application number: P2019/3481/FUL)

Councillor Mackmurdie left the meeting during consideration of this item and therefore did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item 

 In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer reminded the meeting that the item was deferred for the applicant to address a number of concerns as set out at the conclusion of discussions at the previous meeting:

o   There was a general concern about scale and massing and in particular that the visual impact of plant proposed on the roof should be further mitigated.

o   There was a concern about the visual "balance" between the locally listed building 10a, and new elements of the development at 14 All Saints Street. The dark colouration of material on the central element of the new building on All Saints Street was considered to relate poorly to building 10a.

o    Members sought a better explanation as to why a hybrid energy solution involving the canal wouldn’t be workable.

o   Members were concerned that noise and disturbance from the operation of plant and some of the commercial uses (café’s restaurants etc) would adversely impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

o   Light pollution plan associated with the proposal would adversely impact on biodiversity and residential amenity.

·       Meeting was also informed that applicant was requested to explore the possible use of hybrid energy solution involving the canal, address the noise and disturbance from the operation of plant and some of the commercial uses (café’s restaurants etc) as it will impact the amenity of nearby residents and for the applicant to consider its light pollution plan.

·       The Planning Officer informed Members that a second despatch was published which captured the various submissions raised by the objectors since the agenda was published one of which was the failure to re consult on the revised plan and a letter from Emily Thornbury MP.  Members were reminded that due to the nature of revisions, all of which resulted in a reduction of the impact of the development, there was no requirement for there to be a further consultation.

·       Meeting was advised that 8 further objections had been received reiterating concerns originally raised and addressed in the report. The Planning Officer reassured Members that amenity concerns had not been ignored, but had been taken into consideration during deliberations at the meeting of 23 June.

·       On the issue about the proliferation of plant enclosures with differing heights across the scheme, the Planning Officer advised Members that the revised plans show that the enclosures have been consolidated and their height and bulk have been reduced. In addition, the Planning Officer indicated that with regards to scale and massing and visual impact of roof top plant, a number of reductions to the bulk and mass of building have been made since the 23 of June meeting, specifically removal of lift over-runs, made possible by reducing the performance of the passenger lifts.

·        Members were advised that the roof plant now falls behind the parapet of the retained canal side building which is considered to meaningfully reduce the visual impact in key views of the site.

·       Meeting was advised that the design and materiality of the roof top enclosures had been revised under the newly submitted drawings, that the roof enclosures will now be cladded in a simplified light grey standing seam metal material which has the benefit of being slightly more visually recessive, allowing the historic buildings to remain the features of interest in views of the development.

·       The Planning Officer reiterated that Officers consider the current changes to be a further enhancement over the scheme considered on 23 June 2020 and a significant enhancement over the appeal scheme. 

·       With regards to concerns about the visual "balance" between the locally listed building 10a, and new elements of the development at 14 All Saints Street, the Planning Officer advised that revisions have been made to the scheme to better integrate the new building and building 10a when viewed from all Saints Street, that the colour of the anodised aluminium panels has now been reconsidered and revised to a mid-grey that echoes the tones of the roof extension of the building at 6 – 8 All Saints Street and has a softer relationship with the locally listed building at 10a.  Members were advised that the lighter colour is less visually dominating, and prevents the locally listed building at 10a from being visually overwhelmed, reducing the impact to the locally listed building and conservation area and that Officers consider the current changes to be an enhancement over the scheme considered on 23 June 2020 and a significant enhancement over the appeal scheme. 

·       On the suggestion for possible use of a hybrid energy solution involving the canal in addition to air source heat pumps, the meeting was informed that  the Canal and River Trust (CRT) as the Trust has concerns that it may impact the canal’s ecology, and that some kind of pumping system would be required in addition to increase the water flow in this section of the canal. Also Members were informed that no guarantee was received from CRT that the canal would always be filled with water, a difficulty for the applicant as a separate energy backup system would be required in the event the canal water is not useable due to its maintenance and dredging activities. In addition, Members were advised that there is no policy requirement to use the canal and that the proposed solution of using air source heat pumps is policy compliant.

·       With regards to noise and disturbance from the use of the gate and plant/equipment, the Planning Officer advised that this would be controlled via recommended planning conditions 9, 12, 17 and 43 and in the case of  operation of uses such as the café and outdoor area, this would be controlled via recommended planning conditions 11, 32, 33, 34.  The officer confirmed that it is customary for the Council to deal with issues of this sort via the mechanism of planning conditions.

·       The Planning Officer informed the meeting of recent information received from the applicant of their proposal to remove from the scheme the restaurant use and replace it with B1 office space, had been noted and that this change is acceptable in principle. Meeting was informed that officers had no objection to a change in use as the loss of a restaurant will have a positive impact on neighbouring amenity. This proposal was unanimously welcomed by the committee.

·       Members were reminded that if the committee was minded to agree the proposed change, this would require  a change in the description, and hence a re-consultation on this one point, prior to any permission being granted. Following consultation the decision would be delegated to planning officers, in conjunction with the legal officer and the Chair.

·       On the issue of light pollution, conditions 29 and 30 have been recommended to secure a lighting mitigation plan outlining a curfew time for all internal and external lights on automatic turn off, external lights on motion sensor, screening on windows to prevent light spill.

·       With regard to sunlight and daylight impact, the Planning Officer reminded members that although not a reason for deferral, it is important to note that sunlight/daylight impacts were considered by the Planning Inspector at appeal as “harmful” but “not unacceptable”. It was highlighted that notwithstanding the Inspector’s view, the current scheme delivers significant improvements in terms of sunlight and daylight impact over the appeal scheme.  The applicant also asserted that the amendments to the scheme since deferral had delivered further minor improvements to sunlight and daylight impact, bringing a further 7 windows into compliance with BRE recommendations, although these improvements were not formally quantified and presented to the committee as the applicant indicated that since it was not a reason for the scheme’s deferral, it was not viewed as a requirement, however the latest improvement in mitigating transgressions could be forwarded to planning officers.

·       The Planning Officer reiterated a number of planning benefits from the scheme for example, new office spaces, the use of the canal during construction activities thereby removing some heavy construction vehicles and associated traffic from the roads, affordable workspace, financial contributions towards offsetting projected residual CO2 emissions from the development.

·       A condition to safeguard the proposed office space and preventing the applicant subsequently introducing a café or restaurant into the space in the future was proposed and seconded.

·       Objections raised centred on issues such as lack of consultation with the revised scheme, the failure of the applicant to address the alternative heating options, disregarding design officers views about the scheme and amenity concerns . Resident welcomed the latest suggestion to remove the restaurant, however was concerned that noise from users of the 12 balconies had not been addressed . There was also concerns about the scale and massing of the scheme as it not been sufficiently addressed.  Concern was also raised with the speed of the revised scheme being brought back to committee.

·       A resident was concerned that the present scheme was being compared with the appeal scheme which in itself lacks merit and also that concerns regarding the plant on the roof had not been addressed especially with it’s visual impact on the conservation areas.

·       In response, the agent informed the meeting that the revised application had taken on board comments from residents, businesses and members. The agent highlighted the amendments made to the scheme for example the reduction of some of the height level of the plants of those left on the roof and efforts had been made to secure a design that will mitigate some of the visual impact .

·       The agent acknowledged Planning Officers comments about replacing the restaurant use with office space as it also addresses objectors’ concerns about noise levels.

·       Finally the agent reiterated the benefits from the scheme, noting its impact in boosting the local economy by providing jobs, the affordable workspace, reducing the carbon emissions, use of the canal during construction therefore removing 1,000 constructions from plying on the road.

·       In response to concerns of visible plants on the roof, the agent reminded members that some plants  and equipment had been relocated to the basement, the need to comply with BSO standards, indicating that nothing more could be done on this issue as the building needs to be efficient.

·       During deliberation, the Chair reminded members to address the reasons for deferral and representations received, noting the work carried out with regards to the scale and massing of the scheme and the Planning Inspectors report regarding the sunlight and daylight loss. On the issue of materiality, meeting was advised that the suggested material is less oppressive and the change of use from restaurant to office space subject to some technical changes will address amenity concerns.

·       A member acknowledged efforts to mitigate the scale and massing of the scheme, the constraints of the Planning Inspectors report, the objectors constructive involvement throughout the process, noting that their contribution has resulted in improvements to the scheme and welcomed the removal of the restaurant.

·       A member acknowledged the reduction in the roof line, a recognition that this is an old industrial building by the canal and the appropriateness of the plant on the roof.

·       On the issue of further consultation, the Chair reiterated that this consultation would be specific to the change in description and would not relate to the rest of the application.

·       Members agreed that the exact wording of the revised recommendation be delegated to the Planning Officer and the Chair. 

Councillor Clarke proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to including a condition which safeguards the office space. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

1. That planning permission should be granted with the revised description of development removing reference to the purely A1/A3 space and replacing it with: Redevelopment of the site at 10 - 18 All Saints Street including the refurbishment and extension of 10-12 All Saints Street (including part roof extension and installation of rooftop plant and enclosure) to provide additional Class B1 business floor space and flexible Class A1/B1/D1 (retail/office/non-residential institutions) ground floor of 10a, All Saints Street elevation; demolition of 14, 16 and 18 All Saints Street and erection of a part 5 (ground plus 4) and part 6 (ground plus 5) storey building with basement and rooftop plant and enclosures providing Class B1 office floor space and flexible Class A1/A3/B1/D1/D2 (retail/restaurant & cafe/business/non-residential institutions/assembly & leisure) floor space at ground floor, All Saints Street elevation; and associated hard and soft landscaping.

Subject to:

(i) the conditions set out in Appendix 1 [as amended by the second dispatches and to remove any conditions made redundant through the change to office space and to include a condition to prevent the introduction of ancillary restaurants/bars into the newly created office space]; and

(ii) conditional upon the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 [as amended]

Subject only to consideration of (i) and (ii) below

2. That the final decision (including any additional conditions or S106 obligations that are needed) to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development (in conjunction with the Chair of the Planning Committee, and subject to consideration of:

(i) updates to all the relevant planning application documents in respect of the amended description of development; and

(ii) the outcome of consultation with all relevant stakeholders and residents in respect of the amended description of development.