4
The Committee received report ES/2561 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2381/OUT. Members received a presentation from the Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager. It was explained that the site was located within the urban area of Lowestoft, south of Lake Lothing, and comprised land previously associated with the former Jeld Wen Factory, which was used to manufacture timber products until it fell out of use in circa 2010. Members were shown an aerial photograph of the site. The road running through the site, Colin Law Way, was pointed out and it was explained that this road had already been aapplicationdopted prior to this application. Existing businesses to the East were pointed out. The Brook Marine site adjacent to the application site was pointed out. Planning permission was granted but this was yet to come forward and was not looking promising. There was potential for links through to the Jeld Wen site but the sites are in different ownership and allocation of the whole site will not come forward holistically. This is a material consideration. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager explained there were some constraints to the site from the County Wildlife site and flood risk.
Although the application was outline with all matters reserved there is a parameter plan and the Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager showed the revised version. She explained the blue hatched area was housing (up to 500 dwellings) and the yellow area was the proposed employment area. The green shaded area was open space and 1.2 hectares of open space must be provided. She showed the indicative location for early years provision and SCC stipulated where the play area should be located to be away from the telephone mast on the site. Although the mast posed no health risks, perceptually it would be better to locate the play area away from the mast. Buildings on the site would be up to 4 storeys with a max height of up to 15m for industrial units. The eastern edge vegetation will be contained and adjoin the county wildlife site. Main access to the site will be from Waveney Drive.
The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager explained the phasing would travel westwards across the site and the employment land would be independent of all the other areas. The indicative layout that accompanied the application was shared and the overall density would be 47.16 dwellings per hectare (dph). This is compliant with Policy WLP2.4 (Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood) of the Local Plan which requires residential densities on the site to be between 40 and 90 dph. The mix may not be exactly as shown but it is compliant with the Local Plan to have 35% 1-2 bedroom properties; this plan shows 36%. The design of the development will have a strong East to West link and a S106 agreement will be sought. The North to South connections are green streets which will have a different design to the other streets. The layout of the site is governed largely by Colin Law Way.
There are alternative short dog walking routes around the site which will reduce the pull on larger nearby recreational sites and Natural England is happy with this. The streets will be pedestrianised and tree lined with doorstep play activities.
There will be surfacing of an area on the northern side of Waveney Drive to widen the footway from the boundary of the site to East Point Academy. If any alternative application was proposed on the Brook Marine site the footway could be continued. There will be additional surfacing and tactile paving along existing routes to enable access to the primary school, Fen Park and other recreational areas. Natural England were happy with the proposal if these offsite highways improvements are done.
Members were shown photos of the mast and were the early years provision would be. There was a lower ground level here. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager pointed out the dilapidated sheds of Jeld Wen and the Gull Wing bridge in the distance and the higher level of Colin Law Way compared to rest of the site was noted. It was explained that an existing SUDs basin had been incorporated into the scheme and the calculations. Members were then shown a series of photos of the site from different viewpoints.
The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager ran through the Material Planning Considerations and Key Issues which were set out in the report. There had been no objections from Highways and Natural England and although there will be an increase in traffic it was considered acceptable due to the Gull Wing bridge and sustainable travel routes. There is a historic issue with the gulls living on the site. A viability case has been submitted and reviewed by PNB Paribas. It was pointed out that the Planners have negotiated more than was originally proposed and if profit was incurred then money could be clawed back. There are no self-build units proposed and no contribution to allotments due to viability. There is no affordable housing due to the Vacant Building Credit but the Early Years and extension to health centre will be funded first.
The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager explained that the applicant used a bespoke model to model the flood risk which has been approved by the Environment Agency (EA). The 'design flood' levels relative to the road and site would all be dry. There would be potential flooding of the industrial unit but it is already in industrial use and so subject to flooding. Flood resilience measures would have to be incorporated. In an extreme flooding event the site is shown to be vulnerable to flooding. An evacuation plan would be in place for this scenario and there is already a good flood warning system in place in the local area. There should be advance warning due to the tidal nature. There would be no more than 50cm on the lowest parts eg the road and as the flooding is tidal it would be of limited duration. Through an evacuation plan there are adequate flood measures in place.
The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager showed a diagram of flood levels and said the EA no longer objected to the application and were happy for it to be determined in negotiation with the Joint Emergency Planning Unit (JEPU). JEPU don’t object but have recommended conditions that can be dealt with in reserved matters. Paragraph 178 & 179 of the NPPF state that to pass the Exception Test it should be demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. This was reuse of a brownfield and derelict site and in this instance it passed the Exception Test.
The planning balance was compliant with the Development Plan as a whole. Material considerations were not sufficient to indicate decisions should be taken otherwise. There was limited adverse harm and significant public benefits. The recommendation was to approve subject to the recommendations of the EA and JEPU as conditions. The S106 agreement would ensure public open space and RAMS contribution and cycle links. She directed Members to the revised recommendation as shown in the update sheet and the presentation.
Councillor Ashdown asked if it would be beneficial to have the commercial land brought forward first which would also mean you wouldn’t get complaints from residents. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said they can’t insist it is brought forward first and if this were made a stipulation the applicant would probably make a separate application for the housing. Conditions would be imposed on the consent so residential amenity is taken into consideration. There will be employment uses in the north and she believed they wouldn’t give rise to public nuisance complaints but there may need to be compromises, for example they might need to restrict their hours of operation. The Head of Planning and Building Control added that the employment land was already available but access into the site is secured by this application. The employment land doesn’t need much raising so someone could go on there tomorrow. He hoped the land would be marketed very quickly.
Councillor Smithson queried the police report and the concerns about back parking and if there will be an issue getting insurance even if the land is raised. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said the detail was for reserved matters and changes could be accommodated. However officers don’t share the same concerns to the same level as the police. It’s more about the design which could make it feel much less likely to attract crime. It was pointed out that the potential to attract crime doesn’t always materialise in reality. The dwellings won’t be purchased if there isn’t adequate insurance and the Principal Planner said a developer was unlikely to build houses that can’t get insurance.
Councillor Pitchers asked if there would be an extension to the Kirkley Mill Health Centre or a new site. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said the NHS would draw down from CIL reserves to meet the demand. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the Local Plan includes the requirement for increased clinical floor space in the Lowestoft area. Hope Woods Meadow will see a new Doctor’s surgery, and they will work with the Integrated Care Board on these opportunities.
Councillor Beavan raised the issue about not having visibility of confidential reports and that members should see them. The Head of Planning and Building Control said there was an element of viability correspondence that was confidential, however the summed up insights were in the main report. He invited Councillor Beavan to raise this with the applicant.
Councillor Beavan asked what was happening with shared ownership with providers. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained it was raised 4-5 years ago about how this site could come forward and make a viable proposal. An early proposal was for a Homes England backed proposal for shared ownership which wasn’t contrary to policy. Affordable housing should be a mix of tenure. However this hinged on Homes England investment which hasn’t come forward. Homes England can’t invest in s106 housing. They could come forward and ask the applicant to provide it through grants not s106 though. Councillor Beavan said he was talking to Homes England on another site so this was an opportunity to be explored. He asked about the density figures if these were in line with the policy which the Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager confirmed they were.
Councillor Ashton asked if there was any demand for self-build in urban Lowestoft and if there was an issue not providing it. The Principal Planner said there was some latent demand and there is a Lowestoft self-build group however they usually looked for green field sites. The Head of Planning and Building Control said they have a legal duty to provide self-build and they provide it on other sites. Most self-build want more flexibility of sites. They would have liked to see self-build but it is a compromise that has had to be sacrificed and this has been dealt with in the report.
Councillor Bennett asked for clarity on the extent and quality of the shared walking/cycling route going to East Point Academy. It was explained there was a secured uncontrolled crossing going west on Waveney Drive. The existing footway is 1.8m apart from one area where additional surfacing will be provided and within the site there are 3m wide shared footways. Councillor Bennett asked if it was shared use all the way. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager explained the yellow sections were existing footway and there would be additional surfacing to allow continuation of a 1.8m enhanced footway all the way to East Point. It will only be 3m within the site. Councillor Bennett asked for the distance from the top yellow star to East Point Academy which was confirmed as 0.5 miles.
Councillor Beavan asked if Vacant Building Credits (VBC) were applicable even if the site was viable and if there was any case law on VBC. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said they were applicable and there probably was case law about whether a building was really a building or vacant but not to the challenge of the principle in the NPPF.
Councillor Beavan said he had read the BNP Paribas response but didn’t remember anything about excess profit going to fund Early Years provision. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said there wasn’t but this was the hierarchy in the CIL structure. The Head of Planning and Building Control said you would attempt to secure s106 requirements first and then deal with Affordable Housing as that was secondary. It was more a policy consideration than a viability one as to how they are secured.
Councillor Beavan asked if the s106 requirements will be secured if the application was approved and if the developer did make money could we get Affordable Housing. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that if after the financial contributions for early years and health and there were profits beyond that we would secure a commuted sum to invest elsewhere. However he wasn’t that optimistic because the VBC would wipe that out most of the requirement. Councillor Beavan asked if it was normal to accept these reviews at face value or could they be audited. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said yes, it was normal to accept them at face value at this stage.
Councillor Beavan queried if there would be advanced warnings due to flooding being tidal as surge tides and winds play a factor. He asked for the existing ground levels. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said they were in the report and ranged from 3.10-3.60mAOD, with the south western portion near the road being higher at 4.70mAOD and Colin Law Way set at 4.40mAOD.
Councillor Beavan asked if the Exception Test was for the lifetime of the project. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager advised that it was the standard 100 years. Councillor Beavan queried the impact of the expected 1m sea level rise. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manage said this was a question for the applicant/agent.
Councillor Beavan asked what the significant benefit was as the units aren’t affordable for most people in Lowestoft. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manage said there was against the 5-year deficit and tilted balance. Unless there were demonstrable adverse impacts of this scheme there is a strong assumption that there is huge value to offering housing. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the housing crisis is a need for housing in general. This application brings a good mix of homes and there could be Homes England investment as some providers purchase open market properties. He said the Council gives higher weight to affordable where it can be secured. Councillor Beavan asked if all properties would be more than 74m square to be compliant with Affordable Housing. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manage explained this was a reserved matters discussion.
The Principal Planner gave clarity on the tidal flood risks saying there was a flood warning service in place that monitors the wind/wave/tides and modelling predicted tide heights which is monitored 24 hours a day. It would only be a few minutes walk or drive to get out of the flood zone and even though there may be vulnerable people there they were confident that there will be enough time to get warnings out and assist residents. Councillor Beavan said Southwold gets flooding and flood warnings all the time but they only get 24-48 hours’ notice, sometimes only 6. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manage said the current proposal shows that most dwellings won’t be flooded. Even in extreme flood events the JEPU has advised that most people will be able to stay in their properties during a flooding event. There will be flood resilience measures in place such as flood gates on doors, safe locations etc and at reserved matters stage this can be fleshed out with JEPU. Councillor Pitchers commented that he had worked on the site for 29 years and there was never any flooding and there were no signs of flooding on the site in 2013.
The Objector was invited to speak. He explained he was speaking on behalf of the Use Your Voice local group. He said six years ago they were told a tidal barrier would be installed to protect some areas but not all. East Suffolk acknowledged that 903 business were at risk without the barrier and that was without this application site. He appreciated that they got around the lack of barrier by elevating the land but that elevates the cost and means you lose Affordable Housing. The rest of the flood plain needs to be lifted. He said they were all for investment and housing and feels the town has been thrown under a bus by successive governments. Lowestoft is still the only significant settlement without adequate flood protection. This site is on a flood plain and the sea level is rising and it won’t stop. There will be more heat and more rain and everything. There was no sense of urgency and urged the Committee to think again and thanked them for their time. There were no questions for the Objector.
The Applicant’s Agent was invited to speak. He said this was an opportunity for transformational change for Lowestoft. The Report set out the key challenges. The landowner has been committed for over 30 years. They had worked with all parties to develop Colin Law Way and the construction of the Gull Wing bridge and this was 2 ½ years of joint effort to bring forward this development. They were seeking to establish the principle of development. There are risks with brownfield sites and this unique site and it was a critical step to get outline planning permission. It was supported by key parameters and demonstrated how design principles will create a vibrant community with a unique waterfront location. Reserved matters stage will give the opportunity to scrutinise the detail.
He explained it was a highly complex site and the proposal was shaped through consultation and amended on the way to provide better infrastructure. He attended the exhibition at the East Point Pavilion and residents support this regeneration. He explained he was joined by the landowner and project team if there were any questions.
Councillor Folley asked if there was any community hub area planned to help this community grow. The Applicant’s Agent said there wasn’t but there would be Early Years provision. There is no requirement for a community hub or early years provision but they have responded to the needs.
Councillor Ashdown said the commercial area and seafront was vital and asked if there had been negotiations with prospective purchasers. The Applicant’s Agent deferred to the Landowner’s Representative to answer who said employment land was available and will be throughout the development. Early Years and housing was going in first but marketing will commence if approval was given. They had not been approached directly yet by anyone with a meaningful requirement but there have been early conversations.
Councillor Beavan asked if the landowner was responsible for contamination. The Landowner’s Representative explained that the landowner purchased the site which had been used previously by Jeld Wen long before his involvement. It was difficult to argue that the current landowner was responsible but they will remediate the land now which comes at significant cost.
Councillor Beavan explained he had issues that the cost of remediation resulted in the loss of Affordable Housing. The Landowner’s Representative said they had gone through the proper process and the viability shows that it is below what is an acceptable return for any development. Independently agreed level of return for that risk. With a Brownfield site there were considerable upfront costs to remediate and build up the levels. The landowner has made further compromises off and onsite with the s106. With regards to housing the landowner is a founder of a shared ownership housing company. Will be looking to work with Homes England to provide a mix of tenure including shared ownership and rental but it will require Homes England funding. They have had initial discussions with them and they are hopeful but can’t guarantee what will happen in terms of the tenure. Their intention was to secure grant funding though to supply mixed tenure.
Councillor Beavan asked about the abnormal costs stating that if they were removed it brought in extra profit which would make it viable. The remediation was at the expense of Affordable Housing. He was really encouraged about their discussions with Homes England and asked that they work together on this. He suggested the Committee should put in a stronger review clause to look at profit later as there is a desperate need more Affordable Housing here.
Councillor Reeves asked if they accepted that given the average salary level in Lowestoft it meant the vast majority of local residents wouldn’t be able to afford these houses. The Landowner’s Representative said they looked at the housing market and pricing when they developed and a successful development has to deliver houses for local residents. They would price accordingly.
Councillor Bennett asked if there was a highways expert on the team here as he wanted to know how sustainable travel around the site would be envisaged. The Highways Consultant explained they had seen the parameter plan and there would be low speed routes in the site itself. There was connectivity into the surrounding infrastructure with an east/west cycle route and they were putting in additional connectivity offsite to enhance travel to schools. The site was highly accessible and it was walkable to the town centre and other facilities. Residents would have an opportunity to travel by modes other than car. Councillor Bennett asked if the site would be a low speed environment. It was explained that by the nature of the design and streets a 20mph speed would be self-enforcing. There would be separate walkways for pedestrians, parking in front of the house and trees would encourage drivers to slow down. Highways will probably seek a low-speed environment.
Councillor Beavan returned to the viability review and the existing use value and value of the site. He noted the site was worth £3m odd because you could rent out open storage land at £1k an acre per annum. He asked why, if they could get such a good deal, they weren't renting it out and were instead building houses. He questioned if that sort of money was really being paid. The Viability Consultant explained he had produced the viability assessment and liaised with BNP Paribas and said permission had now been given for the viability report to be made available and no longer confidential. He explained that the 'existing use value' was calculated on a different basis to the value of the proposed development. He believed Councillor Beavan felt that if the remediation and demolition costs were applied to the existing use value then the existing use value would be significantly lower. However the cost of remediating land for open storage is not the same as remediating for residential use that and there were significant remediation costs so that is why there is a huge disparity between the two. In terms of profitability or viability to use land as open storage compared to residential there is a market profit element and we have talked about 15% on development value. This was a substantial sum to cover and the risk outweighs the benefit of using the site as storage which is why this land owner was seeking residential development. Councillor Beavan said he would like to see figures on this as a 15% profit element was about £20m. If you put 35 acres out at £1k per acre per annum that was worth a lot more than £20m. He asked if there was such a demand for storage now why weren't they doing it. It was explained that there was not demand for the whole of the site to be used for open storage, just 15%.
Councillor Folley asked about accessibility and disability awareness and if cars cannot get to properties. It was explained that all properties would be accessible but the site would be designed to be sympathetic to reducing car speed.
Councillor Reeves asked if the internal roads will be adopted. The Highways consultant said it would be dealt with in reserved matters. Councillor Reeves asked if there would there be a management company that residents paid into. It was confirmed there would be a management company for the estate to manage the shared infrastructure with a contribution from each dwelling for the maintenance of the estate.
Councillor Byatt spoke as Ward Councillor. He passed the site most days and it was degraded, derelict and a downright disgrace. The site has been neglected for a long time and something needs to be done. He appreciated the problems with Affordable Housing but it was good to hear about the Homes England interest. He supported giving consent to this development. Lowestoft needs homes and hope they will be marketed at an affordable price. He has a few issues about communal areas for waste but that’s for later. In terms of his colleagues in the ward and the wider Lowestoft it shows we are looking forward and the site will be developed sensitively. He asked if solar panels could go on every roof. He wanted to endorse that he thought it was the best that could be done and he supported it as long as it was monitored.
Councillor Ashton asked if he shared the Agent’s view about the consultation and that it was supported by local people. Councillor Byatt said the problem was getting people to consultations and to engage. However short of a referendum he thinks this was a fair response.
Councillor Bennett asked if the development was compliant with the Lowestoft Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Byatt didn’t know it intimately but there was an element of wish lists. What he knows is that this is a designated development area and it complies with the intent of the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Beavan said the Town Council opposed the application. Councillor Byatt had read their response recommending refusal due to flood risk and Affordable Housing but it was a shame that no-one from the Town Council attended today to give their views. He could not speak for them and thinks their comments are out of kilter. If they were that concerned they should have had a representative here today. Councillor Byatt said there was antisocial behaviour on the site currently so he urged Members to approve so it could be sorted.
The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager clarified that a community hub was part of the Brook Marina site.
Councillor Beavan asked if there was 25% profitability would VBC still mean that no Affordable Housing was provided. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager said it was possible but they wouldn’t know until reserved matters. Councillor Beavan asked if it was right that whatever happens VBC means no affordable housing due to the 2014 law. The Major Sites & Infrastructure Manager confirmed that if the VBC eliminated any requirement for affordable housing this could only change if the law changed.
The meeting moved to debate. Councillor Pitchers said he had known the site a long while and knows it well. There was pessimism in the town that nothing would happen so he was pleased something has come forward. He was confident that high quality housing will bring people to the area working in the energy sector and will improve the economic status of the town.
Councillor Smithson said although she was not from Lowestoft you could see the town has huge potential. It needs regenerating and this is a prime site. It was a shame about the Affordable Housing but thinks this is what Lowestoft needs. It will then lead to other areas being regenerated.
Councillor Gee was fully supportive of this project. The Oulton Broad section has been developed well with housing. First noted 40 years ago that this site should be developed. She supported it then and was delighted it has come to fruition. It needs something to regenerate this blighted area. She firmly supports and was happy to second.
Councillor Beavan said we really need to build houses that people can afford to live in but we are held by the VBC. Even if the developer makes £30-40m profits they still don’t need to provide Affordable Housing. This is a clause that should be changed by the government. Regrettably he would not oppose it but would abstain as a protest against this iniquity. He was really encouraged that there is talk of Affordable Housing coming from it through Homes England. He was looking forward to reserved matters and he won’t kick the can down the road.
Councillor Bennett supported this and was pleased there was provision for sustainable transport. He reassured Councillor Folley that vehicles would always be able to access buildings. The Neighbourhood Plan referendum was in 3 weeks and this was in line with their aspirations.
Councillor Ashton had a lot of sympathy with Councillor Beavan’s arguments but that was national policy. The site and allocation aren’t perfect but they are so much better than the status quo so it gets his support.
The Chair liked that there were discussions with Homes England.
Councillor Ashdown said he had been a member of Planning for many years and involved with the Local Plan Working Group. At long last we have something that will happen after having had numerous applications come through. This was the most reasonable one that has come through. Previous ones have had permission granted and nothing has happened. Years ago, when a nearby site was given permission and he asked how long until they started the applicant said three weeks and we are still waiting.
On the proposal of Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Gee it was
RESOLVED
That the application is approved subject only to all of the following:
a) That Officers incorporate the recommendations received from the Environment Agency and Suffolk
Joint Emergency Planning Unit (including the Suffolk Resilience Forum) when finalising the wording
of conditions which are listed in Section 11.2 of the Agenda Report;
b) That an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (England) (as
amended) is signed prior to issuing any grant of planning permission which secures the following:
i) Provision and ongoing management of 0.14ha of LEAP within a total of 2.12ha of open space, including the provision of SANG (including associated residents information packs, signage, dog waste bins prior to occupation).
ii) Full contribution of £384.51 per new dwelling to the Suffolk Coast Recreational Disturbance
Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (‘RAMS’).
iii) Transfer of 0.26ha of land to Suffolk County Council (or suitable alternative provider) to be used for an Early Years setting.
iv) Provision of pedestrian and cycle link on western boundary (precise location and timing to be determined by LPA).
v) Viability Review clause with any identified profit over 15% being used to fund the provision and upgrade of other Early Years or NHS facilities in the Lowestoft area.
vi) Controls relating to the implementation BNG or Travel Plan and any Section 106 monitoring fees required in relation to these or more generally.
c) That all of the above are concluded within six months of the date of the Strategic Planning Committee (or extended period with prior agreement from the Chair and Vice Chair).
Should the above points a) to c) not be complied with, that the Committee delegate authority to Officers to either REFUSE the application or return it to Committee for determination under revised recommendations.