6
The Committee received report ES/0165 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/19/0051/FUL.
Planning permission was sought for demolition of existing buildings and development of an extra care village (use class C2 and C3), access, car parking, landscaping and ancillary development. The application had been referred to the Committee by the Referral Panel, given the wider public interest in the application.
The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer. The site's location was outlined including its relationship with the Beccles Conservation Area. The access road to the site was owned by Roy's Supermarket, and was located immediately south of the site.
Photographs of the site were shown that demonstrated various views in and out of the site and its relationship with Roy's Supermarket. Photographs were also displayed which identified the existing buildings to be demolished and to be retained.
The proposed site plan was outlined to the Committee. The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the application had been submitted as C2 class housing throughout and officers had considered that the bungalows included in the scheme were conventional residential properties. The applicant had specified the bungalows as C2 as a basic minimum care package (detailed at Appendix A of the report) would be received by all residents on the site. The Council sought legal advice which took the view that the bungalows should be considered as C3 class housing and that the larger residential block was C2 class housing.
Elevations and floor plans for the proposed central block were displayed to the Committee. The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer noted the communal space and overnight accommodation for staff that would be provided.
The Committee was also shown a cross section of the proposed site as viewed from Fair Close, as well an east to west section showing the level change at the west of the site and the industrial buildings to the site's east.
Drawings detailing the proposed housing types for the site were shown; these included elevations, floor plans and computer-generated images. Six types of housing were outlined.
The key issues were summarised as the provision of elderly persons accommodation in policy, visual amenity and scale, residential amenity, the design and conservation area, highway access and "gated" parking - 77 spaces in total (a theoretic shortfall of 10 spaces), affordable housing and use class definition and viability, noise, landscape, and planning balance.
Specific reference was made to the viability assessment completed regarding affordable housing, the use of automatic gates for providing a perception of security, parking space calculations and mitigating factors, conditions recommended to address noise issues arising from the installation of a electrical sub-station, and the current landscape of the site.
The recommendation, as set out in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chairman invited Mr Stubbings, representing Beccles Town Council, to address the Committee.
Mr Stubbings said that the Town Council appreciated the application but had some concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing and the scale of development. He considered it disingenuous to compare the proposed central block to the nearby grain silo, as the latter was a narrower building.
The Town Council wanted the development to be inclusive to the entire community and see it have access to the town centre. Mr Stubbings suggested that access to the site should be located on the north-west corner of the site as this would provide a direct link to the town centre. He also stated that the development should be part of the community and not a separate gated community.
There being no questions to Mr Stubbings, the Chairman invited Mr Clark, representing McCarthy & Stone (the applicant), to address the Committee.
Mr Clark said that the applicant had provided retirement facilities and communities in the region for a number of years and he was pleased to see that the Officer had recommended approval. He considered that the application would deliver a high-quality development on a vacant brownfield site in the centre of Beccles, with a range of property to meet different needs.
It was highlighted that care assistants would always be present on the site and that retirement bungalows would be provided. Mr Clark said that the mix of properties proposed would allow residents to move within the community as their needs changed.
Mr Clark considered that the applicant had worked hard with officers and stakeholders to develop the scheme proposed. He was of the view that the scale and massing fitted in with the site and would not impact on surrounding properties.
The Committee was advised that the applicant had undertaken public consultation on the proposals and had amended them based on feedback received through that process.
It was confirmed that high quality materials would be used in construction. Mr Clark believed that the development would contribute to the local community by enabling downsizing which would return other housing to the community and would also contribute to the local economy and East Suffolk's housing supply.
Mr Clark concluded by urging the Committee to, in view of both the Officer recommendation and the positive benefits the scheme would bring, support the application.
The Chairman invited questions to Mr Clark.
A member of the Committee questioned the location of the pedestrian access, as it had been raised during the public consultations, and asked why the recommendation had not been taken onboard. Mr Clark noted that the issue of pedestrian access had been discussed with officers and it was felt that, given Fair Close was an unregistered and unmarked road and therefore difficult to develop, the proposed access was the most suitable solution. He added that there was a significant difference of height in the north-west section of the site that would require an 80-metre-long ramp for any pedestrian access out of the site. The member of the Committee acknowledged the response and questioned why the land could not be levelled out.
It was confirmed that an existing electrical sub-station on the site would be retained and that an additional sub-station would be added due to the size of the proposed development. The existing sub-station would be upgraded, and this area of the site would be covered by a brick enclosure.
A member of the Committee noted complaints regarding noise and light pollution from the existing electrical sub-station and asked if there would be adequate mitigation for this. Mr Clark confirmed that a noise assessment had been undertaken by an independent company which had influenced a mitigation plan for the sub-stations, which included a recommendation for a two-metre acoustic fence. He was confident that the proposed mitigation would address noise and light pollution from the sub-stations.
With regard to a separate question regarding pedestrian access to the sub-station site, Mr Clark advised that the area of the site was effectively landlocked on those boundaries. He added that there was proposed mobility scooter storage and charging facilities proposed within the ground floor of the central block, so that mobility scooters could be used when leaving the site and accessing the town centre.
Mr Clark considered that the proposed parking was sufficient to include visitor parking.
It was confirmed that outbuildings on Fair Close, bordering the western boundary of the application site, would be protected during construction. Mr Clark noted that properties would be sold on a leasehold basis.
Mr Clark reiterated that the applicant was community focused and could explore an agreement to develop the surface of Fair Close but could not guarantee that this would be possible.
The Chairman invited questions to the Planning Officers.
A member of the Committee sought Planning Officers' views on the lack of affordable housing in the application. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that independent advice had confirmed that affordable housing was not viable within this scheme.
The Committee was advised that it needed to consider the application that was before it, including the proposed pedestrian access for the site. The Planning Development Manager advised that the applicant's representative had heard the Committee's concerns about the positioning of this access and would be able to ask the applicant to see if this could be improved. Conditions could not be applied to this portion of the application due to land control issues.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it.
A member of the Committee said he remained open minded on the application but was disappointed with the lack of affordable housing and did not agree with the viability assessment. He considered the scheme to be generally well liked and was comfortable with its scale and massing. He said that it was positive that a longstanding brownfield site was being developed. The Member stated that he wanted to hear what others had to say before making his decision.
Another member of the Committee noted the mix of housing types proposed and acknowledged that with the mix proposed, affordable housing would not be possible. He was content with the proposals but expressed concern with the pedestrian access to the site, urging the applicant to reconsider this. He considered that the development would be well suited to the area but that if the pedestrian access was not revised, people may not buy into it. Several members of the Committee also had concerns about the pedestrian access to the site, suggesting a condition to address it be included on any resolution to approve.
The aesthetic aspect of the central block was discussed, and it was queried if this could be mitigated through changes to its roof. A member of the Committee added concerns regarding the maintenance of a flat roof. The Planning Development Manager noted that the building had been designed with a flat roof to reduce its height and that new technologies made such roofs easier to maintain. She added that a condition could not be added regarding pedestrian access but that an informative could be included on any planning permission granted.
The Planning Development Manager suggested that adding a condition to remove permitted development rights (pdrs) on the garages proposed, in order to ensure parking space was not lost due to conversion of garages into dwellings. The applicant was content with this condition being added.
The Vice-Chairman considered that the over-65 population of Beccles was above the national average and that the development would therefore be of benefit to the local community. She said that more parking would have been preferable but that the provision for scooter storage could mitigate this.
On the proposition of Councillor Ceresa, seconded by Councillor Goldson it was by unanimous vote
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement to ensure the age of one of the occupiers of each residential unit to be over 55 years of age at the start of their tenure and a further clause to ensure ongoing landscape maintenance. (Note precommencement conditions agreed 15 August 2019) If the S106 is not signed within six months then permission be refused.
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the following plans:
001 revision A01 (definitive red lined site plan showing access to adopted highway) received 16th January 2019
015 Rev 0 (building sections main block) received 7th January 2019
002 rev A0 (site topographic plan) received 7th January
003 rev A0 (site master layout plan) received 7th January
016 and 017 rev A0 (Proposed elevations main block) received 7th January
010 to 014 rev 0 (Proposed floor plans main block) received 7th January
020 to 026 rev 1 (Proposed houses, bungalows and garages) received 7th January
027 rev A0 (site section showing levels) received 5th February 2019
019 rev A0 (site section showing levels) received 31st January 2019
and landscape drawings B190919.201, 401,402,403 received 30th April 2019, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. All site investigations must be undertaken by a competent person, conform with current guidance and best practice (including BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and CLR11) and include:
o the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the materials encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy;
o explanation and justification for the analytical strategy;
o a revised conceptual site model; and
o a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
4. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS must include, but is not limited to:
o details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures;
o an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies);
o proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and
o proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring.
The RMS must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including CLR11.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
5. Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 4 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
6. A validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. The validation report must include, but is not limited to:
o results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met;
o evidence that the RMS approved under condition 4 has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and
o evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
7. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. No further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.
An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works. Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
8. No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: Infiltration through contaminated land has the potential to impact on groundwater quality.
9. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods can result in risks to potable supplies from, for example, pollution / turbidity, risk of mobilising contamination, drilling through different aquifers and creating preferential pathways. Thus it should be demonstrated that any proposed piling will not result in contamination of groundwater. The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 170 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution.
10. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on drawing number EM-2535-03-AC-ZZ-003 (8645-003-REV 0) for the purposes of [LOADING, UNLOADING,] manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area(s) shall be retained and used for no other purposes.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of vehicles is provided and maintained in order to ensure the provision of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway.
11. The pedestrian and vehicular access gates shall at all times be retained as stated to be approach triggered rather than operated by card or code.
Reason: To ensure that access to all is available ensuring that pedestrian permeability of the site remains possible and ensuring that residents enjoy integration into the wider community.
12. The approved development must be completed in accordance with the 24Acoustics 'Noise Impact Assessment' (R7224-1 Rev 1, 17th December 2018) and, in particular:
* the acoustic barrier specified in section 5.1, 5.2 and figure 2; and
* the glazing and ventilation measures specified in sections 5.35 - 5.41. shall be provided before first occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter.
Before installation further written and drawn details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for:
* any plant (e.g. ventilation, heating, lifts etc); and
* the new substation.
The work shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme and retained thereafter in the agreed condition.
Reason for conditions 12: To avoid amenity disturbance to residential neighbours by noise.
13. Before the commencement of any work including demolition, the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority written details of a demolition and construction management plan which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with BS42020 and detail how the applicant will mitigate all emissions and shall include (but not be limited to) details of dust, noise, vibration, water run off, light from demolition and construction activities. Details of hours of operation and deliveries shall be provided, along with details of the works compound and temporary accommodation. All work shall proceed in accordance with the plan.
Reason: To ensure that the construction can be undertaken in an appropriate manner having due regard to surrounding land uses.
14. Permitted development rights on all garages to be removed.
Reason: to ensure that parking space is not lost
Informative: it is recommended that the applicant engage in discussions with the Council and key stakeholders regarding the location of the site's pedestrian access.