17-storey Landmark is a step closer to reality

Councillors disagree with officers’ call to reJect it

DERBY’S proposed tallest apartment block took a giant stride forward after the city’s planning committee voted last night against the council officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for the 17-storey building.

With one member absent, the vote was 7-5 in favour of rejecting the recommendation on the scheme known as the Landmark, which is proposed for a car park site in Phoenix Street.

But the committee stopped short of granting planning permission and instead voted to “be minded to grant permission” at the next meeting – when conditions to the development would be discussed.

A number of people spoke about the development, which would see Godwin Developments build 202 apartments on the 0.7-acre plot. The building would measure 54 metres, which compares with other tall city buildings such as Jury’s Inn, which is 40m and the Cathedral at 65m.

Opinion had been divided among heritage experts and regeneration officials about whether the go-ahead should be given.

John Forkin, of Marketing Derby, said “innovation was in the DNA of Derby” and city centre living would bring vibrancy to the city.

“It is not just a shopping centre; it needs to attract people to stay and spend their money here. Money leaves Derby. Rolls-Royce says graduates don’t come here because there is no high-quality accommodation for them.

“The public wants this development and the city needs it.”

The meeting also heard from a spokesman from Historic England, which was against the development. He said: “It will be intrusive and not of the quality required for a landmark building.

“The current regeneration of the Silk Mill and previously the Cathedral will be countered by this development nearby.”

Most committee members spoke, with Councillor Joanna West saying: “I would be thrilled to see it rise like a phoenix from the ashes”, and Councillor Shiraz Khan adding: “It’s the 21st century, we want the city to thrive and I can’t see any harm to the city or skyline.”

Councillor Martin Rawson also spoke in favour: “We would be hard pressed to find any problems with the development from an economic point of view.”

But Councillor Lucy Care said the building needed to be a landmark in name and design. She said: “It needs to have a wow factor and needs to be of quality – and this is neither. It looks like a 1960s block.”

Councillor Frank Harwood added: “As a gateway to the city, we need to get this right. We are turning back the clock 30 years when many buildings in Derby were ugly and imposed on everything around them such as the old power station in Sowter Road.

The appearance leaves a lot to be desired and the scale and mass are wrong. Giving it the go-ahead would be a most retrograde step.”

Council Steve Hassall said the city “deserved better” – but Councillor Paul Pegg said Derby was second class in the East Midlands and “now needed to put that right”.

Committee chairman Councillor Robin Wood had the final word and spoke about the 1960s, when “people were condemned to live in tower blocks”.

He said: “People didn’t like it then and that’s what we are proposing now. The city centre is not full and we don’t need to build up. A third of Derby’s real estate is vacant and could be suited for city centre living. And there is no evidence that people will come and live there overlooking six-lane St Alkmund’s Way.”

The report from council officers recommending refusal said: “There is support for this scheme as it would bring forward regeneration opportunities, deliver housing and city centre living along with boosting the city’s economy and encouraging footfall into the city centre.

“There is also no objection to the in principle redevelopment of this site. But this is a tall building in a prominent gateway location that is located close to a number of sensitive buildings and heritage assets which all play an important role in defining the city’s image.

“It is the scale, mass, external appearance and height of the proposal that has attracted such a wealth of objection and the applicant has not amended the scheme.”