Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Will Edmonds, a partner in  Montagu Evans LLP who informed Members that an 18-month consultation period had been undertaken with Councillors, officers and the local community which had resulted in very significant changes being made to the scheme. 

Following the public consultation event which was attended by over 50 local residents, there had been overwhelming support for the development in terms of the restoration of the listed building, the proposed design of new residential units and the high quality landscaping scheme.  Only three objections had been raised by local residents, all of which focussed solely on traffic-related concerns.  No objections had been raised by Highways Officers.

Mr Edmonds considered the recommended grounds for refusal were not sustainable for the following reasons:-

1.  The reasons relating to ecology and impact on trees were misinformed and capable of resolution through the imposition of planning conditions.

2.  In terms of overdevelopment and the perceived suburbanisation, the scale and siting of the development had been carefully designed to ensure its open nature was protected and enhanced.  Importantly, the quantum of development was the minimum necessary to ensure the scheme was viable, a fact confirmed by the Council’s independent viability consultants as the officer’s report confirmed.

3.  In the opinion of  the client’s Heritage Advisor, the scheme would not harm heritage assets.  The alternative view presented by Council officers confirms that the harm was ‘less than substantial’.  Having reached this important conclusion, it would appear that the report was deficient in undertaking a properly balanced judgement on whether the perceived harm would be outweighed by public benefit despite this being a core requirement of national planning policy.

The decision for Members to make was quite simply whether any perceived harm was outweighed by the overriding planning and public benefits which included:-

·  the restoration of the listed building to its original residential use;

·  the demolition of inappropriate and unsympathetic extensions to the listed building, enhancing its setting;

·  the removal of over 44% of the hard surfacing across the site and replacement with high quality landscaping;

·  the creation of new public access through the site to the common land;

·  the delivery of 24 high quality new homes; and

·  a financial contribution of £275,000 towards affordable housing plus over £300,000 of other Section 106 contributions.

Mr Edmonds respectfully requested that Members overturn the officer recommendation and approve the application.  If this was not possible, he urged that the application be deferred in order that further information could be provided so Members could make a properly informed decision.

Councillor Fookes asked why no affordable housing had been proposed. Mr Edmonds responded that a full viability assessment had been undertaken and this indicated that the inclusion of affordable housing would not be viable however, a sum of £275k would be offered as payment in lieu of this.

Mr Edmonds confirmed to Councillor Mrs Manning that the proposed pathway would enable the general public to gain access from West Common Road through to the common and the listed building.

Councillor Buttinger asked what value was forecast in regard to movement of the proposed houses.  Mr Edmonds responded that values would be agreed as justifiable in the marketplace.

The Chief Planner commented that the Tree Officer's report expanded on comments already contained in the planning report.

Ward Member Councillor Mrs Manning made the following points:-

·  This was a very important site, classed as Urban Open Space with an important Grade II Listed Building and surrounded by Green Belt.

·  The prospect of all union associated buildings being removed (their removal being a major element of the proposal) was most welcome as was the plan to repair/restore the Listed Building and bring it back into an acceptable use.  To achieve this however, and as to be expected, new enabling development was being sought, and it was the manner in which the latter was to be achieved that had given rise to the strong recommendation for refusal.

·  Members had received letters requesting a deferral, rather than endorsing the Chief Planner’s recommendation.  Whilst this may be possible, Councillor Mrs Manning sensed that the necessary changes to the application could be too substantial for a deferral to be appropriate.

·  The site and its layout did not make any redevelopment scheme straightforward.

·  The House, its driveway and general layout of its grounds remain much as laid out in the mid 1700s, despite the many additions and changes made later, which were, by and large, confined to one corner.  It was this initial layout over some two thirds of the site which required protection.

·  Whilst the applicant was making good use of much of the area developed over the past 100 years or so, areas of the site not previously affected by built structures were proposed for change.  Councillor Mrs Manning shared some of the concerns, but  wondered whether those relating to suburbanisation could be overcome by taking a fresh look at the designs of the 6 houses, which in turn could address their proposed positions.  The 6 large detached houses were in two groups, one of 4 houses to the west and 2 houses to the east. At least half of those houses would stand forward of Hayes Court, thus stepping into the garden setting.  The proposed high wall around the car parking area for the flats and their service, could also impinge on this setting.

·  Returning the principal drive to Hayes Court back into use was very welcome.  However, this would be the main drive, serving 8 flats in Hayes Court, their car parking and service areas as well serving 6 houses, including 4 to the west of the main houses, access to the latter being entirely across the forecourt of Hayes Court itself.  This activity would be seen clearly from the main house and a substantial part of the gardens.

·  Whilst the applicant had already addressed earlier concerns about the impact of these houses, they needed to be looked at again and, to help move things forward, Councillor Mrs Manning proposed that the application be deferred.

Ward Member Councillor Arthur had visited the site and was disappointed to note the condition of the building.  Whilst the site had previously been marketed for office use without success, it could be developed for residential use.  The applicant had consulted widely and a consultation day had been well-attended.  Whilst the reasons for refusal set out in the report held some validity, they could be addressed and improved.  For this reason, Councillor Arthur seconded the motion to defer the application.

Councillor Fawthrop had a reasonable knowledge of the area concerned and agreed that the proposed scheme was not suitable for the site.  He suggested that the applicant look at a similar development which was granted for Holwood House as this had not exceeded its existing footprint.  It was important for the site to be brought back into use.  Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Buttinger seconded the motion to refuse the application and stated that the changes required were too significant to warrant deferral.  She also stated that the viability of the site could be addressed by the removal of units.

Whilst Councillor Michael understood Ward Members' desire to see the house refurbished, she considered the proposal to be an over-development of what was an environmentally sensitive site on urban open space.  Essentially, the development would have the same impact here as on green belt and metropolitan open land.  Councillor Michael seconded the motion to refuse the application and was in favour of a smaller scheme being proposed.

A vote in favour of deferral fell at 2-9.

Following a subsequent vote, Members RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons and informative set out in the report with reason 5 amended to read:-

‘5  The proposal would bring built development into closer proximity to the group of off-site trees to the south, west and east of the site and would result in post-development pressure for further works to the trees that may impact on their long-term health, thereby contrary to Policy NE7 of the Unitary Development Plan.’