Seven student accommodation apartments at 5-9 Tavistock Street, Royal Leamington Spa

What was proposed

The application sought to retain an existing facade and build seven student accommodation apartments providing 32 bedrooms, with associated works.

“The Committee considered an application from Ni Ann Limited for a retention of existing facade and construction of a new building containing seven purpose-built student accommodation apartments (to provide a total of 32 bedrooms) and associated works.”

Minutes

Site and earlier scheme

The revised proposal reduced demolition compared with an earlier refused scheme, but officers still identified harm to heritage assets.

“Officers also thought the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the curtilage-listed building, to the setting of the nearby listed buildings on the Parade, and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and this harm was not outweighed by the public benefits arising from the proposal. They noted that the reduced extent of demolition in this revised submission represented an overall improvement compared with the previously refused scheme.”

Minutes

Officers’ recommendation

Officers considered student accommodation acceptable in principle but recommended refusal because heritage harm and overdevelopment were unacceptable.

“Officers were of the opinion that, with regard to the principle of development, insofar as the provision of new student accommodation in this location was concerned, the application was considered acceptable in accordance with Policy H6.”

Minutes

Main concerns

The proposed height, scale, mass, bulk and design were considered harmful to heritage assets and the area’s character.

“Whilst the level of harm identified from the extent of demolition was reduced to the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum, an assessment of the public benefits concluded that they were not sufficient to outweigh that harm. Further, the overall scale, mass, and bulk of the new development was considered to amount to the overdevelopment of the site leading to visual harm to the character of the area.”

Minutes

Other matters and support

Amenity, highway safety, parking, drainage, waste, ecology and archaeology were considered acceptable, while more than five supportive comments were submitted.

“This application was presented to Committee because more than five comments of support had been submitted, and it was recommended for refusal.”

“Other matters, in relation to amenity, highway safety, parking, drainage, waste management, ecology and archaeology were considered to be acceptable.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A supporter and a district councillor addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Committee debate

Following consideration of the report, presentation and representations, members proposed granting the application.

“Following consideration of the report, presentation, and representations made at the meeting, it was proposed by Councillor Kennedy and seconded by Councillor R Dickson that the application should be granted.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Committee granted permission subject to conditions because significant public benefits outweighed the lower-end harm to heritage assets.

“Resolved W/26/0090 be granted, subject to conditions because it was considered that the lower end of less than substantial harm to the heritage assets was outweighed by the significant public benefits of the scheme, authority was delegated to the Head of Place, Arts, and Economy in consultation with the Committee Chair to agree conditions.”

Minutes