©Crown Copyright Reserved. Leicester City Council Licence ... · 2 The objections mainly relate to design and impact on amenity of nearby residential properties. The main issues

Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 9th August 2017

1

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to s106 Agreement20161507 FORMER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL 57 RUTLAND STREET

Proposal:

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 21, 10 AND 9 STOREY BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE 428 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (242 X STUDIO, 104 X 1 BED, 82 X 2 BED), TWO GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNITS (USE CLASS A1, A2, A3, A4 OR B1A) AND CAR PARKING (AMENDED PLANS 11/01/2017)

Applicant: LAND INVEST LTD.

View application and responses

http://rcweb.leicester.gov.uk/planning/onlinequery/Details.aspx?AppNo=20161507

Expiry Date: 2 February 2017DSH WARD: Castle

El Sub Sta

20

15

Courty ard Bui ld ings

Curv e

47

Hous e

Rutland

Alex andra

Hous e

Southam pton Bui ld ings

1 to 37

Wim bledonM i l ls

El Sub Sta

95

60

Fabric Apartm ents

1 to 21

22 to

41

(PH)

13

11

St Georges M i l l

7

10

Queen

11

24

The

Victoria

10

1

17

Deuc e Hous e

2

Wim bledon Hous e

State

21

CentreHous e

Hous e

The Atrium

20

1 to 20

1

10

19

63

5a

5

5

11

3

7to 9

Shel ters

Shel ter

Shel ters

97

92

Phoenix Square1 to 64

9

4

11

F1 to F25

9a

Cly deCourt

13

9

D1 to

D14

B1 to B30C1 to C41

E1 to E14

A1 to A39

11a 11

Shel ter

Shel ter

8 24

62

32

2228

War

eho

use

1 to 5

Fac tory

24

7

21

36 to 42

21

Warehouse

34

19 to 23

Telephone1aSurgery

Exchange

8

2022 to 32

1018

14 1612

93

85

Club

LB

89

23

Sub86

Sta

82

9692

a

57

47

1917

4

2a

1

1

4 Government

5

Offices

6

78 8082 to 84

PH

76

PW

74a

68

74

7072

66a

8

663

1

Churc h

64

Hall

58 to 62

1 to 5

El

8078

84

M u l tis torey

Gov ernm ent

Rutland Centre

Offic es

Car Park

2

56

7173

81

75

Hal lPH

Offic es

11

7

El Sub Sta

PH

52

TCBs

57

PH

61

5

46

54

©Crown Copyright Reserved. Leicester City Council Licence 100019264(2017). Ordnance

Survey mapping does not imply any ownership boundaries and does not always denote the exact ground features.

Summary

This application has been brought to planning committee as six objections to the proposed development have been received.

The application seeks permission for the development of a 21, 11, 10 and 9 storey building to accommodate 428 residential units and two ground floor commercial units.




2

The objections mainly relate to design and impact on amenity of nearby residential properties.

The main issues in the consideration of this application are design and massing, the impact of development on the amenity of nearby residential properties, and impact on heritage assets.

The application is recommended for approval.

Introduction

The application site is currently vacant and comprises a large complex of buildings at the corner of Humberstone Road, Wimbledon Street and Rutland Street. The existing site is made up of four elements of buildings. Two ‘wings’ are located on Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street, both wings are 7 storeys in height with the top 2 storeys set back. The elevation facing Humberstone Road is nine storeys high with a tower element on the corner of Rutland Street rising to thirteen storeys.

The current complex of buildings was constructed in the mid 20th century, following the destruction of a former factory during WWII. The existing buildings on the site were constructed to provide warehousing and offices for the Freeman, Hardy and Willis Shoe Factory.

The application site is located within the St George’s Conservation Area, adjacent to the Grade II listed 47 Rutland Street (Alexandra House) a former 19th century hosiery factory and opposite the Grade II listed 82-86 Rutland Street which was also a former hosiery factory and textile warehouse. The site is located in the Strategic Regeneration Area and the Central Commercial Zone as defined by the City of Leicester Local Plan.

Background

There is an extant planning permission on this site for the change of use of the hotel to student accommodation to provide 454 beds along with A1 retail, A3/A4 restaurant/cafe and B1 creative work space and business use at ground floor along with external alterations (20110540). This consent was implemented although only minimal work was carried out. As such, the current lawful use of the site is as student accommodation.

Past applications:

App ref no: 19991139Description: Change of use of part of hotel basement (class C1) to leisure/health

club (class D2); change of use of part of first and second floors (class C1) to office use (class B1); continuation of use of hotel mezzanine (class C1) as offices (class B1); continuation of use of part of hotel ground floor for retail use (class A1); external alterations (amended plans)

Decision: Approved

App ref no: 19981637


3

Description: Redevelopment of part of existing hotel and external alterations with associated health club, restaurant and function rooms (class C1) (amended plans)

Decision: Approved

App ref no: 19961200Description: Demolition of hotel Decision: Approved

App ref no: 19961199Description: 177 bedroom hotel with associated leisure complex, nightclub and

conference centre (class C1) (amended plans)Decision: Approved

The Proposal

This full planning application has been amended since it was first submitted. The scheme originally sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the development of an 18 storey block facing Humberstone Road and two 11 storey blocks fronting Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. The scheme originally sought planning permission for 637 residential units (501 x studio, 62 x 1 bed, 74 x 2 bed) and two ground floor commercial units (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 or B1a).

Following amendments the development now being considered comprises the development of a 21, 10 and 9 storey building to accommodate 428 residential units (242 x studio, 104 x 1 bed, 82 x 2 bed) and two ground floor commercial units (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 or B1a)

The proposed development comprises a 21 storey tower fronting Humberstone Road and wrapping around on to Rutland Street. The side elevations facing Rutland Street are 11 and 10 storeys high and the side elevations facing Wimbledon Street are 10 storeys high with the two upper floors set back from the immediate street frontage. Car and cycle parking is proposed in the basement along with plant space.

An internal courtyard is proposed in the centre of the development with an accessible landscaped deck area at first floor level. The internal courtyard will provide light to all units facing into this courtyard area. The internal courtyard measures approximately 16 metres x 37 metres.

The proposed development is set back within the application site boundary along Rutland Street to create a wider footpath. The proposed set back (excluding the existing footpath) varies from approximately 1.2 metres near the Humberstone Road junction and 3.9 metres at its widest point. Due to the design of the development this set back varies along Rutland Street and is demonstrated on drawing (10) 00 Rev A. The development has been set back by 1 metre at ground floor level along Wimbledon Street. The proposed development is contemporary in design and features box frame elements and brise-soleil.


4

A mixed palette of materials is proposed in the construction of this development. A polished forticrete dense concrete masonry plinth is proposed at ground floor level on all three elevations. The remaining materials comprise aluminium spandrel and side panels, copper panels, curtain wall glazing, render and stone effect cladding.

Policy Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes the requirement for the planning system to achieve sustainable development, and it sets out the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (paragraphs 6 and 7). The NPPF also sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraphs 14 and 197). In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF.

The council cannot currently demonstrate a full 5 year land supply for housing which weighs in favour of the application. Relevant policies for the supply of housing in the Local Plan and Core strategy cannot be considered up-to –date, but can still be given weight.

In such circumstances the NPPF states that planning permission should be granted unless:- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- Specific policies in the NPPF, the Local Plan and the Core Strategy indicate development should be restricted.

The NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Whilst there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development embedded within the NPPF, there is also a requirement to protect and enhance our historic environment rooted within the NPPF. The NPPF states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. The NPPF focuses on whether a development would lead to the substantial harm of a designated heritage asset and weight is also afforded to the setting of a heritage asset. Where development is of a poor design and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area the NPPF guides the local planning authority to refuse permission.

Other material considerations

Affordable Housing SPD (2011)Climate Change SPD (2011)Residential Amenity SPD (2008)Tall Buildings SPD (2007)


5

Vehicle Parking Standards SPG (2006)St George’s Conservation Area Character Statement (2015)

Section 66 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 outlines the statutory duty of Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 outlines the statutory duty of Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas.

Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.

Consultations

Ancient Monuments Society – these comments are based on the original scheme:

“The Ancient Monuments Society (AMS) has serious concerns about this application. We do not believe the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St George’s Conservation Area. While we do not object to the demolition of the existing building, we believe your authority should have further discussions with the applicant to find a less harmful solution for the regeneration of this important site.”

“The AMS’s view is that the demolition of the International Hotel would not cause substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area provided the building which was put in its place was made to better respond to its surroundings. In other words, an improvement must be made to justify the loss.”

“AMS Trustees were very disappointed to discover that the proposed replacement for the International Hotel would not be an improvement on the existing, but rather would add to the site’s adverse contribution to the Conservation Area.”

“We urge you to seek the advice of Historic England on how to process with this application. We are very concerned that allowing the proposed development to go ahead in its current form would cause irreparable damage to the character of the St George’s Conservation Area.”

Conservation Advisory Panel – these comments are based on the original scheme(21.09.2016):

“The panel raised strong concerns to the proposed redevelopment, as it will fail to preserve the character and appearance of the St Georges Conservation Area and fails to preserve the setting of multiple Grade II listed buildings nearby.

The panel had no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing tower, but there was a range of views as to whether the side wings were worthy of being


6

retained. However, they considered the proposal in its current form was wholly inappropriate as it is of excessive size and scale.

The panel noted that the building was too tall and too bulky, making no reference to its setting. It was out of scale with the streetscene and would have an overbearing impact upon both Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. It also had no reference to the local context.

If a tower is desired by the applicants, it was recommended that it be slim and elegant. They stated that the applicant cannot justify the height of the building on grounds that it would be a landmark building and that the proposal needs to relate better to the streetscape, including the palette of materials.”

Revised comments made, received on the 14.12.2016:

“The principle of the proposal was considered acceptable by the panel. They felt that the slimmer tower was better proportioned and that the juxtaposition between this new development and the existing 19th century former industrial buildings could work. The proposal for the elevations to Wimbledon Street & Rutland Street to be higher than existing buildings, stepping up, was considered acceptable.

The panel did however caveat that the appropriateness of the scheme is subject to the proposed design. They advised that the proposed tower should have a strong vertical emphasis.”

Revised comments received on the 18.01.2017:

“The panel accepted the general design of the revised scheme, noting that it was an improvement on the original scheme. Following on from the panel’s acceptance of the massing at the December 2016 meeting, the panel welcomed the applicant introducing verticality into the elevations and the composition of the 3 elements of the building, all as requested by the panel at the previous meeting.

It was noted that the brise-soleil to the tower are to be decorative, not functional. But that they are acceptable as it provides interest into the tower element of the building. The stepping down elevations along the side roads (Rutland St & Wimbledon St) was also considered acceptable, as the applicant has added variety into the elevations, suitably breaking up the massing.

The panel would like to see the ground floor amenity space at the corner of Humberstone Road & Wimbledon Street have an active frontage, whilst it was considered regrettable that the ground floor frontage to Rutland Street was primarily occupied by the service entrance/s.

Concerns were raised over the lack of detail provided with regard to the proposed palette of materials. Although there were no fundamental objections to the materials proposed, the panel would expect the application to have a greater level of detail. It was advised that officers need to carefully control the standard of materials proposed in order to confirm that the materials are of a high quality, befitting the sensitive


7

location. Drawings confirming the depths of the elevations and how this breaks up the massing should also be provided. “

Environmental Health, Noise and Pollution

Concern was raised that there is no mention of the impact of the proposed commercial use classes on the proposed residential properties above as the application is for A1/A2/A3/A4 or B1A uses and this could result in a bar/restaurant etc being built directly under studio flats. However there are no objections to the proposed scheme providing the recommended conditions relating to the installation of a sound insulation scheme are complied with should permission be granted.

Historic England –the following comments are based on the original scheme (20.10.16):

SummaryThe planning application is for the demolition of the former international hotel and construction of a 17 and 10 storey building to accommodate 637 residential units, two ground floor commercial units and car parking. The site lies within the George Street conservation area and within the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St George, and other Grade II listed buildings. Having assessed the impact of this proposal on the significance of designated heritage assets, our advice is given in line with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guide and the Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Notes 2 and 3.

We believe the tower element of the existing building is a striking feature within the conservation area and wider views of the city. We consider the form, scale, massing and design of the proposed new development harmful to the significance of designated heritage assets and the wider cityscape. Demolition of the existing tower could only be justified by a scheme which represents an enhancement to the character and appearance of the conservation area and we do not believe the proposed scheme is such an enhancement. We therefore recommend alternative schemes are considered for retention of the tower as part of proposals for the site. It is for your authority as the decision-maker to balance harm to designated heritage assets against any public benefits associated with this proposal. However we are unable to offer our support for the scheme as submitted in relation to historic environment issues.

Historic England Advice

Significance and Impact of Proposal on SignificanceWe understand the present building was built for warehousing and offices replacing a shoe factory for Freeman, Hardy and Willis demolished during the Second World War. In the 1970s, the building was converted to a hotel with the addition of the prominent corner tower. The building lies within the St Georges conservation area within the setting of a number of listed buildings within Humberstone Gate, Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. Many of these buildings, including the grade II listed Alexandra House, a former bootlace warehouse designed in the English


8

Renaissance style by Edward Burgess in 1895-98, reflect the prosperous and entrepreneurial 19th and early 20th century development within this part of the city. This period saw the development of St George’s area from primarily residential to large commercial and industrial warehouses and factories for the boot, shoe, and hosiery and knitwear industries. Large scale buildings were constructed on the narrow historic street pattern, creating the characteristic and distinctive canyon-like effect we see today. Defined mainly by 3 storeys or taller industrial buildings, the area is rich in variety and quality of architectural styles with contrasting heights and scale. Historically, corner plots were defined by well-designed buildings reflecting the importance of the Boot and Shoe industries e.g. 29 Rutland Street. This characteristic has continued with the c.1970s tower of the former International hotel and the dramatic presence of the Curve Theatre, designed by Raphael Vinoly - which successfully adds to its immediate townscape. The Grade II* listed Church of St George dated 1823-7, is an important building within the conservation and its soaring turreted tower is a key landmark. Within the St George’s conservation area character appraisal your authority has recognised the contribution of the 1970s corner tower as a strong landmark feature within the area. The tower is undoubtedly the defining element of the building, both in terms of its architectural expression and also its presence within the immediate townscape. Through the imaginative use of smooth blockwork arranged in a series of full-height mullions and right-angle buttresses, with a simple, set back, curtain walling system, the building exploits to the full its slender, structural elements to create an architectural form that is immediately bold, striking and visually distinctive. The crisply expressed vertical components provide the tower with a strong, sculptural quality and rhythm that also contrasts with, and brings a sense of balance to, the adjoining block by drawing the eye upwards and away from its more squat and slab-like proportions. The tower has an obvious architectural and visual quality, and contributes to the townscape quite considerably. Its demolition therefore would result in the loss of a local idiosyncratic feature, which would, in our view, be most regrettable.

In contrast, the elevations to Wimbledon Street and Rutland Street, while in scale with the buildings around them, are less remarkable and do not have the same quality of detail. We do not object to the demolition of these elevations, however, through alteration and enlivenment, we believe there is an opportunity to creatively transform the block. We do not support the demolition of the tower and strongly encourage consideration of incorporation into either a new build or refurbishment of existing.

In considering the proposed new development, we believe the proposed 17 and 10 storey development will dominate the townscape and wider views. The new development is excessive in height, scale and massing in relation to the existing townscape. This is exacerbated by the depth and design of the tower element, which appears to sit on the main block as a heavy mass rather than elegant structure. Overall the massing is blocky and creates a structure which will unbalance the harmonious juxtaposition that characterises the townscape. Though materials such as brick, are chosen to complement Leicester’s use of brick, with glazing to lighten the elevations, we are not convinced by the quality and innovation of the design - it is not remarkable.


9

Therefore, in its current form, we advise this proposal is harmful to the significance of the identified designated heritage assets and does not, in our view, either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Policy ContextThis application we believe will affect the significance of designated heritage assets - listed buildings and the St George conservation area. As such the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and the character and appearance of the conservation area (sections 66(2) and 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990) must be taken into account by your authority when determining this application.

The importance attached to significance with respect to heritage assets is also recognised by the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in guidance, including The Planning Practice Guidance. The NPPF defines significance as ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

Significance can be harmed or lost through development and any harm or loss to significance ‘should require clear and convincing justification’ (paragraph 132, NPPF). The determining authority should aim to achieve the objective of sustainable development which in this context means guiding development towards a solution that achieves economic, social and environmental gains jointly and simultaneously (paragraph 8, NPPF).

The following revised comments were received in relation to the amended scheme on the 30.01.2017:

We refer you to our previous advice letter dated 20 October 2016, the contents of which remain relevant to the determination of this application. The site lies within the St George conservation area and within the setting of numerous listed building within Humberstone Gate, Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. The significance of this area is detailed within our previous advice including the contribution of the tower element of the current building as a landmark feature within the area. We remain of the view that the demolition of the tower would result in the loss of a local idiosyncratic feature, which would be most regrettable. In contrast, the elevations to Wimbledon Street and Rutland Street, while in scale with the buildings around them, are less remarkable and do not have the same quality of detail. We do not object to the demolition of these elevations. We remain convinced that through alteration and enlivenment, we believe there is an opportunity to creatively transform the block. We do not support the demolition of the tower and strongly encourage consideration of incorporation into either a new build or refurbishment of existing.

Notwithstanding the above advice, in considering the revised scheme, the tower element has increased in height to 20 storeys above ground. The footprint of the tower above 11 storeys has been reduced and combined with the revised articulation of the tower, this attempts to break down the massing to create a more elegant


10

structure. Emphasis on the use of glass and aluminium is also intended to lighten the structure. The stepping down of the side elevation along Rutland Street and upper storeys set back along Wimbledon Street and Humberstone Road are designed to respond more convincingly to the existing buildings. Whilst we recognise these changes, overall the proposed development will dominate and still appears excessive in relation to the existing townscape and wider views. This remains of concern.

We question the justification for a significantly taller building in this location and whether this location reflects a significant aspect of what is meaningful about the city's townscape and skyline. The impact of the development on city wide views requires robust assessment and sufficient detail to do this - the level of information within the submission, in our view, does not enable such an assessment. If this considered by your authority to be an appropriate location for such a tall structure, (and we are not convinced it is) because of the scale, mass, wide impact and likely longevity, the proposal needs to set exemplary standards in design. We remain unconvinced by the quality and innovation of the design - it is neither remarkable nor exceptional. We refer you to the published Tall Buildings Advice Note 4, 2015 (Historic England) for further advice.

We repeat our view that this proposal is harmful to the significance of the identified designated heritage assets and does not, either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Our advice is given in line with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Notes 2-3. We refer to you our previous advice letter for the policy context.

Historic England PositionWe support the principle of regeneration of this site for housing and commercial development. However we would advise your authority that the scheme as currently proposed is harmful to the conservation area and the significance that individual listed buildings in the vicinity derive from their setting. The harm is less than substantial as identified in the NPPF, meaning that para 134 is relevant; your authority will be aware that less than substantial harm does not equate to acceptable harm.

The existing tower has been identified by your authority as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area; we agree. Therefore we would urge the applicants to reconsider their proposals and amend the scheme, seeking to retain the existing architecturally attractive tower in any redevelopment proposal and improving the quality of their design to the side elevations. As detailed above both the revised scale and quality of what is currently proposed gives us cause for concern and will neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Recommendation


11

Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues outlined in our advice letters need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 128-137 of the NPPF.

In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires your authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Housing Team – these comments are based on the original scheme:

“In terms of affordable housing needs, in line with Core Strategy Policy C7 and its supporting text, there is a requirement for provision of 15% affordable housing for this location, which should be delivered on site without public subsidy. Based on the proposal to provide a total of 637 flats at the above planning application site, the policy required affordable housing is therefore 96 units.”

Based on the revised scheme the development would be expected to provide 64 affordable units.

Local Highways Authority – these comments are based on the original scheme:

“This planning application seeks planning approval for the demolition of the former International Hotel and the erection of a multi-storey building for a mixed commercial and residential use.

The existing hotel has a vehicular access serving car parking off Wimbledon Street, whereas the proposal includes the closure of the existing vehicular and the creation of a new vehicular access serving an underground car park off Rutland Street.

The proposed development includes 637 residential units, 2 commercial units, 118 car parking spaces and 422 cycle parking spaces. There are no details submitted on how the car parking is likely to allocated, however for a City Centre site such as this, the number of parking spaces provided is considered high, whereas the number of cycle parking spaces are quite low, as the Highway Authority would prefer to see at least one cycle parking space provided per residential unit, and additional cycle parking for the commercial units too. The proposed vehicular access serving the site is shown off Rutland Street which is a busier highway than Wimbledon Street and will require vehicles to cross a cycle lane to get into and out of the access. The access is quite narrow and unlikely to allow two vehicles to pass, and would have no pedestrian visibility splays out on to the footway.

The proposed building will also require service delivery vehicles to stop on Rutland Street and probably wait blocking the cycle lane and or road for quite some time, this is undesirable. The submitted plan does not accurately show the road layout and particularly cycle lane build out on Rutland Street, as such the effect that the service areas will have on the cycle lane is likely to be greater than the plan suggests.


12

The plan shows the majority of the cycle parking provided within the basement, whereas it would be far better if the cycle parking were to be provided on the ground floor.

The proposed development would be likely to increase pedestrian movements on Wimbledon Street, however the building has been shown up to the back edge of the narrow footway, and given that the proposal is for a new building, it really should be setback behind a widened footway of at least 3 metres width.

The Highway Authority would prefer that if vehicular access is to be provided to the site, that the access were provided off Wimbledon Street, and that the access were provided with suitable width and radii as well as appropriate visibility splays out on to the highway.

Therefore in light of the comments above, the Highway Authority cannot support the proposal in its current form until the issues raised are addressed.”

The following revised comments were received in relation to the amended scheme on the 18.01.2017:

“These revised highway comments are made following the submission of the amended plans and the Addendum to the Transport Statement.

The increased number of cycle parking spaces, especially those on the ground floor, have overcome the concerns originally expressed by the HA. The relocation of the vehicular access back on to Wimbledon Street is acceptable too, and although the access has restricted width and visibility splays, it does represent a significant improvement on the existing access and as such would be difficult to resist on highway safety grounds.

Whilst the proposal has not been amended to show a significantly increased footway on Wimbledon Street, which is a requirement of the Tall Buildings SPD, it would perhaps be difficult to seek to resist the application for this reason on highway safety grounds, however a wider footway would be welcomed by the HA.

Given the site location which offers plenty of alternative and sustainable methods of transport, and the previous use of the site, the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

Therefore in light of the comments above, the Highway Authority does not seek to resist the development, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions.”

Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) – these comments are based on the original scheme:

Multiple SuDS are to be integrated within the development including a combined attenuation storage roof garden which will ascribe to a betterment of 30%. The LLFA demands betterment of 50%; SuDS and basement pumping station schematics as


13

well as a exceedance plan are absent from the application. The following further information is required to address these concerns: • Exceedance Plan• Flood Plan: To be used by residents in event of flood• Design Schematics for SuDS• Measures to be implemented to achieve 50% betterment in runoff rates• Designs and Specification of the basement pumping and drainage systems

A revised drainage strategy was provided and revised comments were provided on the 19.01.2017:

1. Exceedance PlanAn exceedance plan has now been provided and is located in appendix B.

This requirement is now satisfied.

2. Flood PlanThe applicant has given sufficient evidence as to why the completion of a flood plan at this preliminary stage in the development cannot be completed. This is because a detailed understanding of the building operation and maintenance is first needed. It must be noted that this document must be provided at a later point in the planning application to ensure approval is granted.

This requirement remains outstanding.

3. Design Schematics for SuDSThe applicant has stated that more detailed schematics cannot be provided until a more detailed design stage, where greater understanding of the building façade is resolved. These documents will be required; as soon as more detailed designs have been completed the SuDS designs must be forwarded on for analysis by the LLFA.


4. Measures to be implemented to achieve 50% betterment in runoff ratesMicro Drainage calculations in appendix C confirm that the development can achieve 50% betterment in runoff rates to comply with Leicester City Council Core Strategy 2. Approximately, 134m3 of attenuation storage will be achieved through permavoid units beneath the green roof SuDS at a minimum depth of 250mm. This is well within the normal loading limits of the roofing structures and should limit run off to approximately 24.26l/s.

This requirement is now satisfied.

5. Designs and Specification of the basement pumping and drainage systemsThe applicant has stated that this information will form part of the wider detailed drainage design. Upon completion of the detailed drainage design, sufficient evidence to satisfy requirement 5 will be available. At this point, the evidence should be provided to the LLFA for assessment.



14

Nature Conservation – these comments are based on the original scheme:

A biodiversity report has been received with the application that was completed by Curious Ecologists on the 31st July 2016. Key mitigation and compensation measures relating to peregrines and black redstarts are missing from the report which is an essential part of the redevelopment process.

As set out by Natural England (NE) the timely demolition of the building is key in not causing disturbance to schedule 1 nesting and breeding birds or a delay of 12 months. An ecological mitigation plan is not clear within the ecology survey and insufficient details have been provided regarding the peregrine and black redstart mitigation measures.

An Updated Protected Species Survey was produced in July 2017 which summarised the findings of a number of surveys which were carried out during March – June 2017 in consultation with the Nature Conservation Team. The following comments are based on this updated report:

Black redstarts

No black redstarts were seen or heard during any of the survey work between March – June 2017. It was considered that the levels of disturbance within the building during the 2017 breeding season (due to ongoing soft demolition works) made the building unsuitable. The local area is known to have supported breeding black redstarts with the completion of the internal soft-demolition works within the building (and therefore a reduction of onsite noise/dust and activity) it is likely that the site could offer more favourable nesting habitat. There is a chance that birds could be attracted to the building during the 2018 breeding season.

Recommended condition – if demolition work on the building doesn’t start before February 2018, updated black redstart surveys should be undertaken and updated advice should be given based on the results.

Peregrines

No peregrines were recorded on the survey building and no evidence of either current or past roosting by this species was found within the survey building during any of the site inspections. No discarded prey items were found, nor any areas of faecal encrustation and splashing. However, the local area is known to support breeding peregrines and the survey building is known to have supported breeding peregrines in the past. It is recommended that a precautionary approach is adopted and that the birds should be deterred from returning to the International Hotel.

Common bird species

Of the nine species of birds recorded on or inside the building, the only species to have been recorded probably/confirmed to be breeding in the building were feral pigeon, blackbird, pied wagtail and grey wagtail. Breeding by all four species was


15

confirmed by observing recently fledged young and adults carrying nesting material and/or food.

Since the building is clearly used for nesting by species of common birds, any future works should ideally avoid the active nesting season. If work commences during the bird breeding season, a search for nests should be carried out before commencing work, and active nests should be protected until the young fledge.

Bats

No bats or evidence of bats were found on site, the building is considered to have low potential for roosting bats and will not be considered a constraint to development. However, it must be noted bats are a highly mobile species and measures should be taken. A condition is recommended to deal with this.

A number of conditions have been recommended and these are reflected in the proposed conditions at the end of this report.

Parks and Green Space

The development site falls within the Castle ward which already exhibits deficiencies in green space provision. The proposed development will increase pressure on the existing open spaces and as such the open space requirements of the new residents cannot be met by existing provision. Unfortunately opportunities to create new areas of green space within the city centre are severely limited therefore we will be looking to make quality improvements to existing open space provision to offset the impact of this development.

The following contributions are required:

- For Informal Green Space £47,802- For Children’s Play Space £24,263- For Outdoor Sports Space £222,254- For Natural Green Space £22,008

Total = £316,327

Sustainable Energy – these comments are based on the original scheme:

“The heating strategy described in the Energy Statement for the development is proposed as follows;Electric heatersAmenity spaces and commercial units are to be provided with heat pump heating and cooling and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.Hot water to flats from electric emersion heaters.Hot water to studios by ground floor central water heaters

The provision of community heating, district heating, CHP and decentralised energy should be considered for this proposal given the size of the development, its location


16

and its capability to support a base annual heat and hot water load. A more detailed proposal is required.

The plant room provision, shown on the drawings, would appear to be entirely adequate to support a connection to the Leicester District Energy Network for heat exchange infrastructure, water storage and plant. Alternatively plant space is available to house a combined heat and power (CHP) unit which could provide primary communal heat and hot water, supported by secondary gas boilers. ASHP`s may also be appropriate renewable energy options for the project.

The potential for a future connection to the district heating network should not be ruled out at this stage and future connection allowed for in the event that continued expansion of the heat network progresses in the Leicester Cultural Quarter area.”

The following revised comments were received on the 02.03.2017:

The revised Energy Statement has considered provision of community heating, district heating, CHP, renewable and decentralised energy including financial viability assessments and payback periods. The heating strategy described in the Energy Statement for the development remains as follows;

- Electric heaters- Amenity spaces and commercial units are to be provided with heat pump

heating and cooling and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.- Hot water to flats from electric emersion heaters.- Hot water to studios by ground floor central water heaters- PV panels to roof surface

The proposal is expected to reduce the CO2 emissions for the property by 10% over the Building Regulations, Part L 2013.

I therefore have no objection to this proposal

Property

A viability assessment was submitted in support of the proposed development. The applicant’s development appraisal has been fully considered and examined. It shows a Profit on GDV of 9 % based on their assumptions. The appraisal did not include any contribution towards affordable housing but did include a s.106 contribution of £100,000. The level of Profit on GDV is well below the usual benchmark figure based on a Profit on GDV of 15 - 20% which is an accepted benchmark of viability.

Development appraisals contain many variables which are sensitive to small changes and subject to differences of opinion and the highlight elements of the appraisal have been considered in comparison to other schemes particularly in terms of build cost and end values. The conclusion is that the high level approach taken by the applicant does appear to be reflective of market conditions and even with the sensitivity of the key elements of the appraisal it is unlikely that a benchmark level of viability could be achieved on the current assumptions of no affordable housing or S106 contributions.


17

Representations

Six objections have been made to the proposed development:

Poor quality development Poor mix of housing units Already too many small space apartments in the vicinity of the site Studio flats are not the right fit for this neighbourhood Not sustainable development No provision for affordable units as required by policy CS7 Amenity for residents will be poor Loss of light and privacy to residents on Wimbledon Street Development will result in overlooking New development should appeal to young professionals Proposed development will not make a good home for anyone Balance of accommodation is too heavily in favour of studio apartments Development will result in an increase in noise and overshadowing The increase of traffic and pollution from vehicles accessing the car park in a

narrow street will reduce the airflow between buildings The development will put more pressure on car parking in the area The height of the proposed development is out of ratio with St George’s Mill in

this narrow street Wimbledon St) The roofline and façade is not in scale with the neighbours and dominates the

street and undermines the rhythm of the street frontage which will disrupt the conservation area.

Leicester city lacks play spaces and open spaces which would be of benefit around here.

A further objection was received from Cllr Kitterick objecting to the quality of life for the residents of the proposed studio units.

One further representation was made informing the Local Planning Authority that brown asbestos is present in the boiler house in the basement and information relating to the sewer system in the building.

Consideration

Principle of development

The proposed development includes the demolition of the existing building complex.

The local planning authority consider that although the existing complex of buildings are not entirely without merit, with the Rutland Street wing providing a competent piece of period architecture that is not out of keeping with its setting, the heritage value is low overall. The St George’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal Addendum (2003) identifies the site as being one that detracts from the character of the area but also identifies the tower as a landmark of the area. Whilst Historic England raised concerns over the demolition of the existing buildings, particularly the tower, taking into account the above and given the poor condition of the existing


18

building and its limited architectural/historic interest, the demolition of the existing building complex is considered to be acceptable.

The application site is located in the Strategic Regeneration Area which Core Strategy Policy 4 notes will be the focus for major housing development and physical change to provide the impetus for economic, environmental and social investment. Core Strategy Policy 4 also states that development must protect and enhance heritage assets.

Core Strategy Policy 12 supports new build residential development in the City Centre providing an acceptable living environment can be created.

The lack of a 5 year supply of housing is considered a factor of significant weight factor in the planning balance due to the scale of development and the heritage assessment as discussed in this report below.

The principle of residential accommodation is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location, subject to other material considerations including design, massing, impact on heritage assets and impact on residential amenity.

Design and Impact on Heritage Assets

The proposed development is modern in design and will utilise modern materials. The design of development has evolved considerably during the application process to the scheme which is being considered now.

The building is located in the St George’s Conservation Area and affects the setting of several listed buildings, including the adjacent Alexandra House (grade II) and the taxi station on Humberstone Gate (grade II). The current complex of buildings was constructed in the later 20th century, following the destruction of a former factory during WWII. In terms of contextual design, the current buildings are at the upper end of building scale for the site. The existing largest elements are focussed on the wider road of Humberstone Road, with the wings facing the side streets stepping down. Recessed upper floors also help manage the impact of the massing on the streetscene.

The proposed new build is substantially larger than the current building, including the elements facing all the adjacent streets. However, the massing of the proposed building has been significantly improved following revisions to the design. The larger full width wing along Humberstone Road has been redesigned to include a tower element, which more elegant and has a more comfortable relationship with surrounding structures. The existing complex of buildings has a tower element, which has some landmark qualities, so the replication of this approach is broadly appropriate. The proposed tower is larger than the existing one, but the width and articulation mean that its visual impact is less harmful to the setting of nearby heritage assets. The existing tower was noted in the St. George’s Conservation Area Character Statement as being a strong landmark feature which in combination with the telephone exchange tower reads as an impressive ‘gateway’ out of the conservation area. The reinstatement of a tall tower element as part of the


19

redevelopment of this site will ensure that this ‘gateway’ feature of the conservation area is retained.

The proposed development along Rutland Street steps up in height from 24.3 metres by Alexandra House to 33.7 metres adjacent to the corner tower element. The elevation along Rutland Street also incorporates setbacks at higher levels. The existing building is approximately 27 metres in height. The scale of the development along Rutland Street has been reduced and is considered to be at the maximum scale of acceptable development which can be comfortably accommodated in this location.

Whilst the proposed buildings on Wimbledon Street are higher in terms of the number of storeys, the proposed development is not dissimilar in terms of overall height. The existing building measures approximately 28 metres to the roof, whilst the proposed development measures approximately 30 metres to the roof of the wing running along Wimbledon Street. The 7th to 9th floors of the proposed development are each set back from the façade of the development in 3 and 6 metre increments.

It is considered that while high, the development along Wimbledon Street sits comfortably in its context and the simplification of the elevational detailing has resulted in a more cohesive appearance and one that will sit more comfortably in relation to existing properties.

The development has been set back within the site to provide wider footpaths to accommodate ease of movement for pedestrians. The development has been set back by 1 metre at ground floor level along part of the Wimbledon Street elevation planting to protect amenity. The setback along Rutland Street varies from approximately 1.2 metres near the Humberstone Road junction and 3.9 metres at its widest point. The setback along the Humberstone Road frontage also varies from 8.4 metres at its widest point to 0.6 metres at its narrowest. Due to the constrained nature of the site being bounded by Wimbledon Street and Rutland Street it was not feasible for wider footpaths to be provided, particularly along Wimbledon Street, as this would reduce the internal courtyard width which would not be considered acceptable in terms of amenity standards. The development has been back within the site as much as is reasonably possible and will create wider public pavements allowing better movement around the site, in doing so the proposed development addresses the guidance set out in the Tall Buildings SPD.

The St. George’s Conservation Area Character Statement describes the existing elevations to Wimbledon Street and Rutland Street, as having a poor quality detailing and as providing lifeless ground floor frontages to the street. It is considered that the proposed development addresses the issues identified with the existing building and would significantly improve the appearance of the site and area.

The success of the development is however dependent on the use of high quality materials. A mixed palette of materials is proposed in the construction of this development comprising a polished forticrete dense concrete masonry plinth is proposed at ground floor level on all three elevations. The remaining materials comprise aluminium spandrel and side panels, copper panels, curtain wall glazing, render and stone effect cladding.


20

Overall it is considered that the development will improve the appearance of the site and will result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets. The proposal addresses the guidance set out in the St. George’s Conservation Area Character Statement and it is considered that the proposed development complies with sections 66(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Residential amenity

Saved Local Plan Policies PS10 and H07 seek to ensure that the amenity of future residents of development and existing residents of adjacent development is acceptable.

The proposed development seeks to provide a variety of unit types and sizes (242 x studio flats, 104 x 1 bed flats and 82 x 2 bed flats) with two commercial units at ground floor level. The size of the proposed residential units varies and is as follows:

STUDIO 1 BED 2 BEDSIZE (SQ M)

NO. SIZE (SQ M)

NO. SIZE (SQ M) NO.

20.65 1 32 1 67 6121.5 234 37 6 68.5 132 1 38.6 1 78 536.95 6 44.3 44 78.3 10

45.8 3 90 551.7 2853.1 156.6 1057.3 10

CS Policy 6 seeks to ensure that where feasible new housing is designed to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards so that they are adaptable enough to match lifetime’s changing needs. The ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard has been superseded by Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings standard M4 (2), which is set out in the Building Regulations. The one and two bedroom flats proposed in this development meet the accessible and adaptable dwellings standard M4 (2), and the studio units can be converted to meet the standard M4(2) if necessary.

The proposed unit sizes vary throughout the proposed development and whilst the studio units are generally quite small, the remainder of the units proposed are generously sized. Furniture layouts for the studio flats have been provided and demonstrate that a small double bed, sofa, desk, kitchenette, storage and bathroom with a shower cubicle. It is considered that on balance the proposed development provides an adequate mix of unit sizes and types appropriate to the city centre location of the development and complies with CS Policy 6. The City Council does not have a five year housing land supply and the units will provide a significant contribution to the shortfall in the Council’s housing supply.


21

A number of flats will have a sole outlook overlooking an internal courtyard area. The courtyard measures approximately 16.7 metres by 38 metres and will overlook a landscaped deck area provided at first floor level. The proposed separation distances between the residential units overlooking this courtyard area are considered to be acceptable.

There are residential units located in St George’s Mill, on the opposite side of Wimbledon Street, which is 5 storeys in height. Concern was raised by some residents over the impact of overlooking and loss of light from the proposed development.

The proposed development will maintain the same separation distance from St. George’s Mill as the existing building which has extant permission to be converted into student accommodation. The windows serving the proposed development are also smaller than the existing windows, which are wider than average, thus reducing any impact of overlooking. This permission has been implemented but work has ceased. It is considered that the use of the proposed development for general residential accommodation will not have a dissimilar impact to the existing situation in terms of overlooking and is acceptable.

As detailed in the ‘Design and Impact on Heritage Assets’ section of this report, the proposed building heights are not dissimilar to the existing building, particularly along Wimbledon Street. It is considered that the proposed development will have a similar impact on the existing residents of St George’s Mill in terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing as the existing building and the proposed development is acceptable in this respect.

There are no other residential units within the vicinity of the site which would be affected by the proposed development in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overshadowing. The proposed development is set back within the site by approximately 1 metre at ground floor level along Wimbledon Street with planting to the front to protect the amenity of occupiers of the proposed development.

An internal communal area providing approximately 310 sq m is proposed at ground floor level which will front Humberstone Road and Wimbledon Street and provide an active frontage.

A landscaped deck area is proposed at first floor level in the internal courtyard which will provide 480 sq metres of amenity space for residents. The proposed first floor landscaped deck area is surrounded by a void perimeter walled area to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the first floor units. Access to the deck is provided through two internal entrances.

External amenity spaces are also provided at 7th (100 sq m), 8th (86 sq m), 9th (310 sq m) and 10th (750 sq m) floor level. The main external amenity space will be provided at 10th floor level with landscaping and ecological enhancements provided.


22

A condition is recommended requiring details of the planting at roof top and landscape deck levels to be provided. A developer contribution has also been secured towards the retention and upgrading of sports facilities at St. Margaret’s Pastures.

The proposed development is served by two bin store areas at ground floor level, providing bin stores for the commercial and residential units. These are located adjacent to the lifts serving the building to ensure accessibility and are accessible at street level.

The proposed development provides cycle and vehicular parking and this is examined in more details in the ‘Highways’ section.

Two commercial units (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 or B1a) are proposed at ground floor level. The proposed uses are considered to be compatible with the residential uses above and nearby uses. The noise pollution team have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposed scheme providing the recommended conditions relating to the installation of a sound insulation scheme are complied with should permission be granted. A condition to secure a sound insulation scheme is recommended. A condition to restrict the opening hours of the commercial units to between 07:30 and 23:00 is also recommended. These opening hours are appropriate in this location.

Overall the level of amenity serving the residential units in terms of the amenity of the proposed residential units, the level of amenity space available and access to cycle parking and bin stores is considered to be acceptable. It is also considered that the proposed development will not result in an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring buildings.

Highways

The proposed development would provide five separate internal cycle stores, two at ground floor level (total 147 spaces) and three at basement level (total 313 spaces). Those located at basement level are accessible by lift. The Vehicle Parking Standards SPG requires 281 cycle spaces to be provided to serve the residential accommodation. The proposed development complies with this requirement and proposes to provide 460 cycle parking spaces overall. The commercial element of the proposed development would require two cycle spaces to be provided for staff and one cycle parking space for customers. A condition is recommended to be attached requiring two cycle spaces to be set aside for staff within the cycle stores and a separate condition will also be recommended to secure cycle parking for customers to the commercial units.

Due to the central location of this proposed development there is no requirement for car parking to be provided, however the development proposes to provide 120 car parking spaces at basement and ground floor level, which is considered to be acceptable.

The access to the car park has been relocated from Rutland Street (as originally proposed) to Wimbledon Street, which is considered to be acceptable as this is a lesser trafficked street. The site is currently accessed by vehicles on Wimbledon


23

Street and the proposed development seeks to relocate the current access and provide a wider access. This will improve an existing situation and is considered to be acceptable.

As noted in the section on ‘Design and Impact on Heritage Assets’, the pavements around the site on Humberstone Road and Rutland Street are proposed to be widened. Due to site constraints, the proposed development was not been amended to show a significantly increased footway along Wimbledon Street, which would be desirable. Despite this, it is difficult to resist the application for this reason on highway safety grounds.

Given the site’s location which offers plenty of alternative and sustainable methods of transport and the extant use of the site, the development is considered acceptable.

The Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of highways and has recommended that a number of conditions are attached to secure certain works such as the reinstatement of footways, inward opening windows, the submission of a Travel Plan and Travel Pack and a construction method statement.

Sustainable Energy

CS Policy 2 requires new development to address climate change through energy efficiency measures and sustainable construction methods. Wherever feasible development should include decentralised energy production or connection to an existing Combined Heat and Power or Community Heating System.

The revised Energy Statement considered the provision of community heating, district heating, combined heat and power, renewable and decentralised energy including financial viability assessments and payback periods and recommended the following options to be incorporated into the development:

Electric heaters Amenity spaces and commercial units are to be provided with heat pump

heating and cooling and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. Hot water to flats from electric emersion heaters. Hot water to studios by ground floor central water heaters PV panels to roof surface

Amended plans indicate that PV panels are proposed to be installed on top of pergola structures which are proposed on the roof.

The revised Energy Statement demonstrates that the development complies with CS Policy 2 in terms of sustainability and a planning condition is recommended requiring final details of the sustainable energy strategy to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development.

Drainage


24

CS Policy 2 of the Core Strategy requires new development to address climate change and flood risk; the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage also require the application to demonstrate that the site will retain its first 5mm of rainfall.

A detailed drainage design for the proposed development has not been provided however, the submitted SuDS Drainage Strategy proposes the use of green roofs, permavoid storage tanks below the green roof systems and rainwater butts to the green roof areas.

The applicant has given sufficient evidence as to why the completion of detailed schematics and a flood plan is not possible at this stage. Once a detailed understanding of the building operation and maintenance is gained a detailed SuDS scheme can be provided. A planning condition is recommended to require details of a full detailed SuDS scheme to be submitted prior to commencement of development.

Ecology

Peregrine Falcons have been known to nest on the roof of 57 Rutland Street with suspected roosting or breeding Black Redstart either on or in close proximity to the application site. Both these birds are listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This affords the birds the highest level of protection against disturbance while nesting.

The survey work carried out between March and June 2017 found that no peregrine falcons were recorded on the survey building and no evidence of either current or past roosting by this species was found within the survey building during any of the site inspections. However, the local area is known to support breeding peregrines and the survey building is known to have supported breeding peregrines in the past and measures are recommended to be put in place to deter any future nesting.

No black redstarts were seen or heard during any of the survey work between March and June 2017. The local area is known to have supported breeding black redstarts and with the completion of the internal soft-demolition works it is likely that the site could offer more favourable nesting habitat and there is a chance that birds could be attracted to the building during the 2018 breeding season. Therefore, if demolition work on the building does not commence before February 2018, updated black redstart surveys will be required and a condition is recommended to secure this.

Supporting information submitted found that the building was of low bat roost potential.

The proposed development provides a good opportunity for biodiversity enhancements and proposes the provision of either a brown or green roof on part of the development and the provision of nest boxes which is welcomed. The provision of a brown roof is preferable and would provide replacement habitat for the Black redstart and would also encourage other species of wildlife. Further information is still required on the construction and maintenance of the brown roof which can be secured by condition.


25

The proposal also includes the provision of 4 x Schweglaer 2HW nest boxes, which will be incorporated into the buildings design and located near to the brown roof area and will accommodate Black redstart. There is a requirement to encourage further bird species and a condition is proposed requiring an additional 6 x bird boxes to be provided within the development to facilitate this. Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure biodiversity enhancements it is considered that the proposed development complies with the biodiversity requirements of CS Policy 17.

Viability and Developer Contributions The statutory tests for the use of section 106 obligations are set out in Regulation122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. This states that obligations should be:-

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms• directly related to the development• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal which has been assessed by Property and found to be sound in its calculations that show the viability of the proposed development is such that insufficient funds are available to provide financial contributions towards any of the requested contributions or the provision of affordable housing.

The parks and green spaces team identified that a developer contribution of £316,327 would be required to offset the impact of this development. £222,254 of that sum would be required towards outdoor sports space. Although the viability appraisal shows limited viability the developer has offered £100,000 as a developer contribution and it is proposed to utilise these funds towards the retention and upgrading of sports facilities at St. Margaret’s Pastures. This project has been identified in the agreed Playing Pitch Strategy commissioned by the City Council, along with Leicestershire and Rutland Sport and Sport England, which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base and is currently out to consultation.

Conclusion

The application proposes to redevelop a brownfield site which has been left derelict and vacant for a number of years. The site is located within the strategic regeneration area where the principle residential and commercial development is considered to be acceptable.

The proposal is located in a sustainable city centre location and will provide much needed housing in the City. Whilst some impacts would occur in heritage terms, as the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the housing will make a significant contribution to the shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, the development complies with the local development plan, NPPF and NPPG and is considered to be acceptable.

I recommend that this application is APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND THE COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT:


26

Obligations

Sport provision - an off-site contribution of £100,000.00 towards the retention and upgrading of sports facilities at St. Margaret’s Pastures.

CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission. (To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.)

2. Within one month of the date of this decision and prior to the commencement of demolition, the mitigation measures recommended in sections 5.2 to 5.4 of the ‘Updated Protected Species Survey’ completed by Andrew Chick, June 2017 shall be implemented. (To comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), the Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 and CS 17 of the Core Strategy)

3. Prior to the commencement of development, including any works of demolition, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: (i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (ii) the loading and unloading of plant and materials; (iii) the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (v) wheel washing facilities; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. (To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, and in accordance with policies AM01, UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development, this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition).

4. Prior to the commencement of demolition of the existing building, a detailed demolition method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The demolition method statement shall include a methodology detailing how and when the building will be checked for protected species. The demolition shall only be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement. (In the interests of public safety and the protection of adjoining heritage assets in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS18 and to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), the Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 and CS 17 of the Core Strategy this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.)


27

5. Prior to the commencement of demolition and during demolition the recommendations relating to bats contained in ‘6) Conclusions and Recommendations’ in the ‘Biodiversity Report’ produced by Curious Ecologists, amended January 2017, shall be implemented. A suitably qualified ecologist should be contacted immediately and works ceased if a protected species is found during this process. (To comply with the Wildlie and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), the Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 and CS 17 of the Core Strategy)

6. Prior to commencement of development, including demolition, a training and employment method statement strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The strategy shall contain guidelines to subsequent developers designed to maximise local job opportunities and include: 1) Measures designed to provide appropriate targeted training and other initiatives to provide employment advice and/or programmes for residents within the local area to enable them to obtain the requisite knowledge skill experience, confidence and opportunity to be employed in jobs connected with the Development; 2) Measures to provide collaboration with local job centres, training agencies and other employment based initiatives within the City of Leicester to further the objective of maximising local job opportunities resulting from the development. Within 28 days of a written request from the City Council the developer shall provide details of all steps taken under the approved statement. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement. (In accordance with Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition)

7. Prior to commencement of development details of energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted to the City Council as local planning authority and agreed in writing. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first use of the development. (To ensure sustainable construction, adaptation and mitigation of climate change in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS2, this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.)

8. Prior to the commencement of development large scale (e.g. 1:20) section drawings (of sections to be agreed), showing typical design details of the elevations of the proposed building which shall include curtain walling, cladding systems, window treatment (including sections and reveals), windows (including materials and finishes), roof edges, balustrades, vents, grilles and rain water goods, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in accordance with the aims of Core Strategy policy CS03)

9. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, detailed cross sections of each elevation at a scale of either 1:100 or 1:200 shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The details shall be implemented as approved. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development).


28

10. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, detailed sections and drawings of the proposed brise soleil at a scale of either 1:100 or 1:200 shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The details shall be implemented as approved. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development).

11. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, details of the materials for all external elevations, including the brise soleil shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The details shall be implemented as approved. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development.)

12. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, full details of the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) together with implementation, long term maintenance and management of the system shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. No flat shall be occupied/the use shall not commence until the system has been implemented. It shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: (i) full design details, (ii) a timetable for its implementation, and (iii) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the system throughout its lifetime. (To reduce surface water runoff and to secure other related benefits in accordance with policy CS02 of the Core Strategy. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development.)

13. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, details of a sound insulation scheme to prevent the transmission of noise from the commercial units, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation of the commercial units and in accordance with the approved details. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction a detailed planting and ecological management plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. This scheme shall provide details of planting and biodiversity enhancements for the roof top amenity areas and the landscape deck, and shall include details of: (i) all planting, including plant type, size, quantities and locations; (ii) means of planting, staking, and tying of trees, including tree guards; (iii) roof top floor surface treatments; (iv) details of 10 x Schwegler 2HW nest boxes to be erected on buildings and brown roof. The approved plan shall be carried out within one year of completion of the development. (In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3Urban Design, CS 17 Biodiversity).


29

15. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, full specification details of the proposed brown roof including construction, planting details and maintenance strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The brown roof shall be provided prior to occupation and maintained thereafter in accordance with those details (To ensure sustainable construction and adaptation and mitigation of climate change in accordance with policy CS2/7 and CS 17 of the Leicester City Core Strategy Plan).

16. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction a detailed design plan of lighting to be used which shows the locations of lights, their type of light emittance and wavelength, together with a lux contour map showing the variation in light, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting should be designed to cause minimum disturbance to protected species that may inhabit the site with appropriate areas remaining dark and a maximum of 1 lux on vegetated/water areas where considered necessary. Any lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and retained thereafter. (In the interests of protecting wildlife habitats and in accordance with policy BE22 and policy CS 17 Biodiversity of the Core Strategy).

17. Prior to installation, details of all balcony and balustrade railings shall be provided at a scale of 1:100. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3. To ensure that the details are agreed in time to be incorporated into the development.)

18. Prior to the commencement of development, details of how the land between the face of the approved building and edge of the application site (adjacent to Wimbledon Street, Humberstone Road and Rutland Street) will be laid out and maintained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The footway shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development. (To ensure the pavement on Wimbledon Street, Humberstone Road and Rutland Street is an appropriate width for a building of this size and in accordance with policy CS03 of the Core Strategy.)

19. No part of the development shall be occupied until the sound insulation recommendations set out in section ‘8.0 CONCLUSIONS’ of the report by Acute Acoustics (Ref: 1989 Leicester - Rutland Street [Rev A]) have been fully installed. The sound insulation scheme must include option 2 in all areas it was raised. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

20. No part of the development shall be occupied until any redundant footway crossings and/or damaged or altered areas of footway or other highway have been reinstated/altered in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (For the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other road users, and in


30

accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

21. No part of the development shall be occupied until the footway crossing(s) has/have been altered in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (To achieve satisfactory means of access to the highway, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

22. No part of the development shall be occupied until a Travel Plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable to be contained within the Travel Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. The Plan shall: (a) assess the site in terms of transport choice for staff, users of services, visitors and deliveries; (b) consider pre-trip mode choice, measures to promote more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, car share and public transport (including providing a personal journey planner, information for bus routes, bus discounts available, cycling routes, cycle discounts available and retailers, health benefits of walking, car sharing information, information on sustainable journey plans, notice boards) over choosing to drive to and from the site as single occupancy vehicle users, so that all users have awareness of sustainable travel options; (c) identify marketing, promotion and reward schemes to promote sustainable travel and look at a parking management scheme to discourage off-site parking; (d) include provision for monitoring travel modes (including travel surveys) of all users and patterns at regular intervals, for a minimum of 5 years from the first occupation of the development brought into use. The plan shall be maintained and operated thereafter. (To promote sustainable transport and in accordance with policies AM01, AM02, and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy).

23. Prior to the first occupation of each unit, the occupiers of each of the dwellings shall be provided with a ‘Residents Travel Pack’ details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council, as the local planning authority in advance. The contents of the Travel Pack shall consist of: information promoting the use of sustainable personal journey planners, walking and cycle maps, bus maps, the latest bus timetables applicable to the proposed development, and bus fare discount information. (In the interest of promoting sustainable development, and in accordance with policy AM02 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policy CS14 of the Core Strategy)

24. No part of the development shall be occupied until secure and covered cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter. A minimum of two cycle parking spaces shall be allocated to staff working in the ground floor commercial units. (In the interests of the satisfactory development of the site and in accordance with policies AM02 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).


31

25. No part of the development shall be occupied until secure and covered cycle parking has been provided for customer and visitor use, in accordance with written details previously approved by City Council as local planning authority. The cycle parking shall be retained thereafter. (In the interests of the satisfactory development of the site and in accordance with policies AM02 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

26. The one and two bed units provided as part of this development and its associated parking and approach shall be constructed in accordance with Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings M4 (2) Optional Requirement. On completion of the scheme and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a completion certificate signed by the relevant inspecting Building Control Body shall be submitted to the City Council as local planning authority certifying compliance with the above standard. (To ensure the dwelling is adaptable enough to match lifetime's changing needs in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS6)

27. The basement and ground floor car parking provision shall be provided before the occupation of any part of the development and shall be retained and kept available for that use. (To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner; and in accordance with saved policy AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

28. All street works shall be constructed in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

29. Any door/barrier/bollard or other similar obstruction placed across the vehicular access from Wimbledon Street, shall be setback at least 5 metres behind the back of the highway boundary, and be of a type that does not open outwardly. (In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and other road users and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy C3.)

30. All doors and windows on the grounds floor level on the highway frontages to the building shall be of a type that does not open outwards over the public highway. (In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy C3.)

31. Should the demolition of the building not commence by February 2018 then further Black redstart surveys shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist. The survey results shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority and any identified mitigation measures carried out before the development is begun. Thereafter the survey should be repeated annually until the development begins. (To comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), the Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 and CS 17 of the Core Strategy).


32

32. Should the development not commence within 24 months of the date of the last protected species survey, produced by Andrew Chick (June 2017), then a further protected species survey shall be carried out of all buildings, trees and other features by a suitably qualified ecologist. The survey results shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority and any identified mitigation measures carried out before the development is begun. Thereafter the survey should be repeated annually until the development begins. (To comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), the Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 and CS 17 of the Core Strategy)

33. The ground floor commercial units shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 07:30-23:00 daily. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

34. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following amended drawings:Site Location Plan - (02)01 Rev A, received 08/08/16Elevations:Humberstone Road - (30) 01, received 26/07/16Humberstone Road - (30) 02, received 27/07/16Rutland Street - (30) 03, received 26/07/16Rutland Street - (30) 04, received 27/07/16Wimbledon Street - (30) 05, received 26/07/16Wimbledon Street - (30) 06, received 27/07/16Floorplans: Basement – (03) 00, received 13/01/17Ground Floor – (03) 01 Rev B, received 23/06/17First Floor – (03) 02 Rev A, received 11/07/17Second to Fifth Floor – (03) 03 Rev A, received 11/07/17Sixth Floor – (03) 04 Rev A, received 11/07/17Seventh Floor – (03) 05 Rev B, received 11/07/17Eighth Floor – (03) 06 Rev A, received 11/07/17Ninth Floor – (03) 07 Rev B, received 11/07/17Tenth Floor – (03) 08 Rev B, received 27/07/17Eleventh Floor – (03) 09 Rev A, received 27/07/17Twelfth to Twentieth Floor – (03) 10 Rev A, received 27/07/17Roof Plan – (03) 11 Rev B, received 11/07/17Rear South – (20) 04 Rev B, received 11/07/17North Courtyard – (20) 05 Rev B, received 11/07/17West Courtyard – (20) 06 Rev B, received 11/07/17East Courtyard – (20) 07 Rev B, received 11/07/17South Courtyard – (20) 08 Rev B, received 11/07/17Wimbledon Street set back details – (10) 01 Rev C, received 22/03/17Landscape Deck details – (10) 02 Rev A, received 22/03/17Rutland St GF details – (10) 03, received 01.02.17First Floor plan with setbacks to elevations – (10) 08, received 01/02/17(For the avoidance of doubt.)


33

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. The Highway Authority’s permission is required under the Highways Act 1980 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for all works on or in the highway. For new road construction or alterations to existing highway the developer must enter into an Agreement with the Highway Authority. For more information please contact [email protected].

2. With regards to the Travel Pack the contents of the pack are intended to raise the awareness and promote sustainable travel, in particularly for trips covering local amenities. The applicant should seek advice from Bal Minhas (Leicester City Council's Travel Plan Officer via telephone 0116 4542849).

3. The insulation scheme shall ensure that the Indoor ambient noise levels fall within the “good” design range as specified in British Standard BS 8233:2014 “Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings”. In addition, the scheme shall ensure that the LAmax does not exceed 45dB(A) on more than 15 occasions during any night time period).

4. 4. Development on the site shall avoid the bird nesting season (March to September), but if this is not possible, a re-check for nests should be made by an ecologist (or an appointed competent person) not more than 24 hours prior to the commencement of works and evidence provided to the LPA. If any nests or birds in the process of building a nest are found, these areas will be retained (left undisturbed) until the nest is no longer in use and all the young have fledged. An appropriate standoff zone will also be marked out to avoid disturbance to the nest whilst it is in use.

5. All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended making it an offence to kill, injure or disturb a wild bird and during the nesting season to damage or destroy an active nest or eggs during that time.

Policies relating to this recommendation2006_AM01 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of pedestrians and

people with disabilities are incorporated into the design and routes are as direct as possible to key destinations.

2006_AM02 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of cyclists have been incorporated into the design and new or improved cycling routes should link directly and safely to key destinations.

2006_AM05 Planning permission for large scale development will not be granted unless provision is made for access to and for bus routes.

2006_AM11 Proposals for parking provision for non-residential development should not exceed the maximum standards specified in Appendix 01.

2006_AM12 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in accordance with the standards in Appendix 01.

2006_BE10 In developments involving a new shopfront, the design should be an integral part of the whole building and should be in proportion to the lines of the facade of which it forms a part.


34

2006_E03 Planning permission granted for the development of appropriate B1, B2 and B8 uses in Primarily Employment Areas and not for changes to other uses unless it meets criteria.

2006_E04 Planning permission granted for appropriate high quality B1 and B2 and complementary uses within the Business Parks identified on the Proposals Map if they meet criteria.

2006_E06 Planning permission granted for the development of B1 offices and criteria for the development of complementary uses.

2006_H03 Provides guidance on minimum net densities to be sought for residential development sites according to location.

2006_H05 Planning applications involving the loss of housing will be refused unless they meet criteria.

2006_H07 Criteria for the development of new flats and the conversion of existing buildings to self-contained flats.

2006_PS06 Planning permission will be granted for development proposals that contribute to the creation of a new mixed use residential neighbourhood in the St George’s area as shown on the Proposals Map.

2006_PS10 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the amenity of existing or proposed residents.

2006_PS11 Control over proposals which have the potential to pollute, and over proposals which are sensitive to pollution near existing polluting uses; support for alternative fuels etc.

2006_UD06 New development should not impinge upon landscape features that have amenity value whether they are within or outside the site unless it can meet criteria.

2014_CS01 The overall objective of the Core Strategy is to ensure that Leicester develops as a sustainable city, with an improved quality of life for all its citizens. The policy includes guidelines for the location of housing and other development.

2014_CS02 Development must mitigate and adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The policy sets out principles which provide the climate change policy context for the City.

2014_CS03 The Council will require high quality, well designed developments that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local natural and built environment. The policy sets out design objectives for urban form, connections and access, public spaces, the historic environment, and 'Building for Life'.

2014_CS04 The Strategic Regeneration Area will be the focus of major housing development and physical change to provide the impetus for economic, environmental and social investment and provide benefits for existing communities. New development must be comprehensive and co-ordinated. The policy gives detailed requirements for various parts of the Area.

2014_CS06 The policy sets out measures to ensure that the overall housing requirements for the City can be met; and to ensure that new housing meets the needs of City residents.

2014_CS07 New residential development should contribute to the creation and enhancement of sustainable mixed communities through the provision of affordable housing. The policy sets out the broad requirements for affordable housing.

2014_CS08 Neighbourhoods should be sustainable places that people choose to live and work in and where everyday facilities are available to local people. The policy sets out requirements for various neighbourhood areas in the City.

2014_CS12 In recognition of the City Centre's role in the City's economy and wider regeneration, the policy sets out strategies and measures to promote its


35

growth as a sub-regional shopping, leisure, historic and cultural destination, and the most accessible and sustainable location for main town centre uses.

2014_CS15 To meet the key aim of reducing Leicester's contribution to climate change, the policy sets out measures to help manage congestion on the City roads.

2014_CS17 The policy sets out measures to require new development to maintain, enhance and strengthen connections for wildlife, both within and beyond the identified biodiversity network.

2014_CS18 The Council will protect and seek opportunities to enhance the historic environment including the character and setting of designated and other heritage assets.

2014_CS19 New development must be supported by the required infrastructure at the appropriate stage. Developer contributions will be sought where needs arise as a result of the development either individually or collectively.

Documents

©Crown Copyright Reserved. Leicester City Council Licence ... · 2 The objections mainly relate to design and impact on amenity of nearby residential properties. The main issues