Agenda item

9e.1

An amended condition and an additional representation were included within the Supplementary Report circulated and summarised at the meeting. 

9e.2

The Officer presented the report which gave details of the application and highlighted the history of the site and the key issues in addition to presenting photographs of the site which were provided to committee members in advance of the meeting.

9e.3

Ann Walton and Stuart Bywater attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

9e.4

Jeremy Williams attended the meeting and spoke in support of the application.

9e.5

The Committee considered the report and recommended conditions having regard to the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and other relevant considerations as summarised in the report and supplementary report, now submitted and also had regard to representations made during the meeting.

9e.6

Various members voiced their concerns about the impact of the development on the residents of the nearby apartments, some of whom referred to the site visit and it being in their view an unacceptable impact on their living conditions.   Some members were critical of the design of the building, whereas some expressed positive views about the design but concern about whether it was the right design in the right place due to the heritage of nearby buildings and it being in the conservation area.  The vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation to grant the application was lost and members further articulated their potential reasons for refusing the application and after taking advice from the planning officer in that regard.

9e.7

RESOLVED: That an application for planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7-storey office building (Use Class E) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible retail and/or other Use Class E), with associated cycle parking (Amended Scheme) at 39-43 Charles Street and 186-194 Norfolk Street, Sheffield, S1 2HU (Application No. 21/02206/FUL) be REFUSED, because Members of the Committee considered that the amenity impact on the residents surrounding the site (in terms of loss of light, loss of outlook and overdominance) was unacceptable due to the scale, massing and siting of the building.  They also considered that the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets of the Prudential Assurance listed building and this part of the city centre conservation area was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The mass and bulk of the building was unacceptable in this location, the final wording of the decision notice to be agreed with the Co-Chairs of the Planning and Highways Committee.