Agenda item

Part change of use and part redevelopment of 46 Essex Road, 160 Packington Street and 162 Packington Street and land to the rear fronting onto Queens Head Street to provide a total of 2350sqm B1 office space and the creation of one additional residential (C3) flat (in addition to 2 existing units) to create a total of 3 (2x3 bed and 1x2 bed). The proposals include the erection of a four storey (including basement) B1 office building fronting onto Queens Head Street and roof top additions to 162 Packington Street including alterations and improvements to the façade of the existing buildings.

(Planning application number: P2015/0971/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer stated that the reference to 13 weeks in the second paragraph on page 46 of the officer’s report should be removed as it was no longer applicable as the applicant had entered into a planning performance agreement for this scheme.

·         The planning officer confirmed that affordable workspace was defined by reason of its size or reduced rates. In this case, it was size.

·         There were 85sqm of affordable workspace and this meant approximately 10 people could use the space.

·         Affordable workspace made up 3.6% of the workspace rather than a minimum of 5% which was specified in policy. At 3.6% of floorspace and 85sqm, the unit would have been considered a small or micro enterprise unit.

·         Given that a 5% of workspace was required as per policy DM5.4D, the policy also sought that the rent for the affordable workspace unit be secured as peppercorn rate for at least 10 years to a council-approved Workspace Provider.

·         The planning officer confirmed that amenity in the proposed dwelling was considered acceptable.

·         The reconsultation did not include the revised entrance for the affordable workspace as with approximately 10 users, this was not considered a material change to the scheme. The main entrance was on Essex Road.

·         The yard had been designated as commercial land and had previously been the servicing area for Merchants Hall.

·         Concern was raised about the management of cycles.

·         Concern was raised that policy required large single occupier units to be designed so they could be divided into the smaller units in the future and the proposed development could only be divided by floor. The applicant stated that the building was a locally listed building and the layout of the existing building lent itself to one large office space. The office space would initially be marketed as one unit but would be subdivided in the future if necessary.

·         A shared surface was not supported by officers as it could impact upon road safety and the amenity of neighbouring residents.

·         Policy supported the use remaining commercial.

Councillor Klute proposed that Condition 7 be amended to require the floorplan to be amended to provide 5% affordable workspace. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

Councillor Nicholls proposed a motion that the amended affordable workspace be secured in terms of management and lease, as per policy DM5.4, with further advice to be taken from the Policy Team. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

[Post meeting discussion and detail: Officers had discussed this internally and considered that given the amended business unit would be approximately 117.5sqm in size (at 5% of the scheme’s floorspace) this would no longer constitute a ‘small or micro enterprise’ and must be assessed against Part D of the policy. If the applicant intended to retain this floor area as a single unit, then the applicant would need to agree to lease the workspace at a peppercorn rent for at least 10 years to a council-approved Workspace Provider. This must be secured as part of the S106 agreement. However, in the event that the applicant identified the 117.5sqm floorspace as divided into two (or more) units, these would be classified as either micro (10-50sqm) or small (50 to 90sqm) workspaces and would be considered as ‘affordable’ by virtue of their size.]

Councillor Convery proposed a motion that officer check the policy requirements in relation to management and lease issues and secure by condition or S106 as appropriate in consultation with the chair. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to require the use of solid bricks. This was seconded by Councillor Convery and carried.

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to condition that the brickwork be Flemish Bond. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed that the management of cycles should be included in the travel plan. This was seconded by Councillor Nicholls and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the case officer’s report with the amendments outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers in consultation with the chair, plus 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 of the case officer’s report as amended above.