Teaching and learning building at University House, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and constructing a five-storey teaching and learning building with landscape, access and highway works.

“DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TEACHING AND LEARNING BUILDING (CLASS F1(A)) INCLUDING ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE, FOOTPATH, ACCESS AND HIGHWAY WORKS.”

“25/00892/FUL | DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TEACHING AND LEARNING BUILDING (CLASS F1(A)) INCLUDING ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE, FOOTPATH, ACCESS AND HIGHWAY WORKS. | UNIVERSITY HOUSE WINSTON CHURCHILL AVENUE PORTSMOUTH PO1 2UP”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a four-storey university office building, two annexes, a car park, trees and hedgerows beside several city-centre streets.

“The application site comprises an existing 4 storey University building, currently used for office and administrative purposes. The building sits within a roughly rectilinear site, which also contains 2no. annex buildings and a car park.”

“The site is bounded to the north by Winston Churchill Avenue, to the east by St. Vincent Street, to the South by Melbourne Place and to the west by Waltham Street. There are 42no. trees in and around the site, as well as 4no. hedgerows and soft landscaping. None of these trees are subject to a TPO (Tree Preservation Order). The proliferation of planting results in a fairly verdant locality, which is especially noticeable in the city centre.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier applications included a granted application, an environmental assessment screening decision and a concurrent demolition prior approval application.

“There is a concurrent prior approval application under consideration for the demolition of the existing buildings on site under reference 25/01174/DEM.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal’s negative effects on trees, heritage, design and neighbouring living conditions outweighed its benefits.

“The overall design of the building is not considered to represent the excellent architectural quality required by policy, and therefore, this is afforded great negative weight by Officers. The impact on the living conditions of occupiers of the Old Forge is also afforded great negative weight due to the proposals close proximity and lack of set back.”

“Conversely, the proposal has been afforded significant negative weight once, great negative weight three times, moderate negative weight twice and limited negative weight three times.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways raised cycle parking and construction parking matters, while conservation, arboricultural and regulatory officers objected over heritage, trees, design and light impacts.

“Authority is the potential shortfall in car parking within the city centre while the proposal would be under construction, if the Eldon Street Multi Storey Car Park is not complete, which should be controlled through condition. Lastly, note that a financial contribution for Highways improvements should be provided.”

“Trees are material considerations in the formal planning system and developers should anticipate the need to accommodate trees within a development; whether through the retention of existing trees or tree planting directly. The net loss in trees is untenable, the 'partial mitigation' unacceptable. Were full mitigation planting possible at 1:1 amenity value and benefits will take decades to recover.”

Officer report

What residents said

Two objections raised concerns about light, outlook, privacy, overbearing scale, trees, biodiversity, noise assessment and possible glint and glare.

“The following objections were made to the scheme;”

“Proposed building would be overbearing due to its scale and height • Loss of privacy into residential properties in Charter House • Loss of trees resulting in loss of biodiversity and ecology and also a negative impact on gardens • Lack of noise assessment • Loss of light and outlook affecting enjoyment of roof terrace of Old Forge • Potential for glint and glare • Existing Anglesea Building is large enough to accommodate the required laboratory space…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report, an objector and the agent made deputations, and members received the applicant’s response on light impacts.

What members debated

Members recognised the university’s importance and possible economic benefits but highlighted residents’ loss of light, tree removal and the proposal’s poor fit with its surroundings.

“It was recognised that the presence of the university is of great importance to the city. Developing this site would provide operational benefits for the university, and a more attractive university offer would deliver wider economic benefits to the city. It was also noted that the architecture in the area is not consistent and having a modern building on the car park could be desirable.”

“However, members noted the following concerns: • The adverse effect on the lives of residents at the Old Forge would be significant, including loss of light and a sense of enclosure. • The removal of trees would conflict with the council’s tree-planting programme and its policy to retain trees and greenery wherever possible. Part of the lungs of the city would be removed.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because the scheme would harm trees and biodiversity, Charter House, the streetscene and Old Forge residents’ outlook, light and amenity.

“1) The proposal, by reason of the significant loss of mature trees and planting and inadequate mitigation/replacement planting, would cause significant harm to visual amenity and local biodiversity contrary to Policies PCS23 and PCS13 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012) and PLP41 of the Pre-submission Local Plan.”

“4) The proposal, by reason of its excessive footprint, scale, mass, bulk, height and lack of planting/landscaping would result in a loss of outlook, light and a sense of overbearing on occupiers of the Old Forge, resulting in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity contrary to Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012) and PLP1 of the Pre-submission Local Plan.”

Officer report