Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the erection of four buildings of between 4 and 6 storeys to provide up to 301 units of Co-Living accommodation (Sui Generis) together with associated communal facilities, basement level to provide access, vehicle and cycle parking, plant and refuse enclosure, with associated groundworks and landscaping.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Marie Hanlan (to object)

·         Mr Duncan Tindale (Tiger Developments Ltd) (In Support) and;

·         Mr Paul Landsberg (Barton Wilmore) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from Specialist Development Management Majors, John Busher.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included some typo corrections and one additional late representation from a resident.  The application was for the construction of a co-living scheme on the site of the former Burymead House, Portsmouth Road.  The development would consist of 301 residential units with an array of internal and external communal areas.  The site was located within the town centre and urban area.  Burymead House had been demolished in the early 2000’s in anticipation of re-development and was an office building up to 10 storeys in height.  The site already had two extant planning permissions in place, one for an office development and the second in 2018 for an assisted living scheme which in terms of design was virtually identical to that proposed in this application, except for a different pattern of fenestration and external materials as well as a slight reduction in some building heights.  The 2018 scheme was therefore a significant material planning consideration.  The site was located within the Millmead and Portsmouth Road Conservation Area as well as a number of listed buildings close to the site including those on Berry Street. 

The proposal was split into four individual blocks with each block split into two sections of different heights and roof forms.  The height and massing of the buildings were virtually the same as the extant scheme with slight reductions in height compared to the approved scheme.  Residents would have their own private studios and living space but was shared with a large area of communal space for residents which included a coffee bar and gym that would be maintained by the owner in perpetuity.  Fifty-two of the apartments would have a private communal meal space provided. The outdoor space would be split into an upper courtyard with lower-level seating areas and landscaping.

The Committee noted that despite some minor reductions in height made to the buildings proposed and changes to materials and fenestration, the current proposal was virtually identical to the assisted living scheme which was approved by the Committee in 2018.  In terms of design and appearance, officers were still of the view that the proposal was acceptable, subject to conditions to control materials, landscaping and window details.  It was also acknowledged that the site was within the Millmead and Portsmouth Road Conservation Area, in close proximity to a number of Grade II listed buildings and the Grade II star listed St Nicolas’ Church.  Planning officers had concluded that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the surrounding heritage assets and that the harm would be at the lower end of that scale and was in accordance with the NPPF.  Great weight and considerable importance was afforded to such harm; however, the public benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the harm on this occasion.  In addition, officers had attributed a moderate level of harm to the lack of any wheelchair accessible dwellings within the scheme.  However, the benefits of the proposal were considered to be wide ranging, providing a significant quantum of housing which would meet a demand for smaller accommodation in the town as well as the provision of 67 affordable units. The proposal would also bring a long-term derelict site in a prominent location into reuse and would help to repair the street scene in the area.  There would also be economic benefits and improvements to local infrastructure.  When taking into account the harm resulting from the scheme and the great weight and importance which must be afforded to the impact on the heritage assets, the planning balance weighed in favour of the application and was therefore recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement.  

The Committee discussed the application and considered that given the extant planning permissions that already existed for this site, the scheme proposed was compliant with planning policy.  The Committee recognised the demand for co-living opportunities.  The Committee noted that the site had remained a vacant brownfield site for many years and welcomed the development of it.  Concern was raised that the accommodation appeared to be geared towards young professionals and there was no mention of couples, single parents or people in professions such as lorry drivers, shop assistants or people with families who may also have a desire for this sort of accommodation.  Clarification was sought from planning officers regarding the allocation of affordable homes and how this allocation would be maintained in perpetuity.  The Committee also considered that the open space on Portsmouth Road had a very steep slope and asked planning officers whether it would be levelled out.  The Committee was also concerned that all tenants should have adequate access to daylight not just satisfactory access, as alluded to in the planning officers report.

John Busher, planning officer, confirmed that in terms of daylight, it would have been the same situation for the extant scheme.  Planning officers had therefore taken a pragmatic approach towards the scheme as a whole in terms of access to daylight for the dwellings, in the rooms and in the communal spaces.  The affordable apartments would be let to people on a median wage level of £25,000 per annum or less.  The open space provided between Blocks A and C would also be on level land.  If tenants were to start a family, then they would need to assess their situation accordingly and move to a larger dwelling as appropriate.

The Committee considered the increase in the number of units to be considerable however also acknowledged that the scheme was located in a sustainable area close to bus, train and cycle networks and would make an ideal purchase for younger people seeking affordable accommodation.

In conclusion, the Committee agreed that on balance the scheme represented a positive contribution towards the housing needs of Guildford.  The extant permissions previously secured for the site was a significant material consideration whereby the site had already been considered acceptable for this type of development.  The size and massing of the scheme was virtually identical to the extant scheme approved in 2018.  The harm caused to the local heritage assets was also outweighed by the benefits of the scheme in helping to plug the gap in the provision of affordable dwellings and overall housing shortage. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/01811subject:

(i) That a s.106 agreement be entered into to secure:

·         provision of not less than 67 units to be provided at a Discounted Market Rent;

·         arrangements to secure the letting of the 67 affordable units, and in a situation where they are not, a mechanism for the Council to be compensated for any under provision of affordable units;

·         a SANGS contribution and an Access Management and Monitoring Contribution in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area;

·         contribution towards NHS Primary Care;

·         contribution towards policing infrastructure;

·         on-site car club provision (provision of two cars);

·         car-club membership for all new residents;

·         on-site cycle hire scheme;

·         bus shelters with Real Time Passenger Information;

variation to TRO to preclude future occupiers from obtaining a parking permit;

·         upgrade the existing pelican crossing on Portsmouth Road;

·         contribution towards wayfinding signage;

·         a 6-metre area of land (4 metre wide by 1 metre deep) fronting Portsmouth Road to be dedicated to Surrey County Council in order to provide land for a bus shelter;

·         contribution towards the implementation of the Council's Sustainable Movement Corridor; and

·         management plan to be agreed (including pulling the bins out to the designated areas, engaging with Designing Out Crime Officer) If the terms of the s.106 or wording or the planning conditions are significantly amended as part of ongoing s.106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and lead Ward Member.

(ii) That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Head of Place / Director of Service Delivery. The recommendation is to approve planning permission, subject to conditions.