6
The Committee considered report ES/1336 which related to planning application DC/21/4501/FUL. The hybrid planning application sought full planning permission for retirement living accommodation, car parking, access, landscaping and ancillary development; and outline planning consent with all matters reserved for a community use building and ancillary development. The retirement accommodation proposed would be of 53 dwellings, comprised of 43 apartments and 10 bungalows, classed as a typical residential C3 use, with a degree of care and support to be provided to residents, along with communal facilities. Occupancy would be restricted to persons aged 60 and over. The application had been referred to the Committee by the Head of Planning and Coastal Management due to the scale and significance of the development and the recommendation for authority to approve.
The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (Major Sites), who was the case officer for the application. The Committee considered the site context as allocated under policy WLP4.5 of the Waveney Local Plan 2019. At the time of allocation, the site was considered to be suitable for 40 conventional housing dwellings, however the retirement community nature of the proposal would enable a more efficient use of the site. The Committee were shown contemporary photographs and computer generated images of the site, a policies map, the residential site plan, proposed elevations, floor and roof plans and the proposed dwelling types.
The Principal Planner (Major Sites) illustrated and surmised the material planning considerations and key issues which were:
- The Principle of development
- Highways: accessibility and technical standards
- Housing density and Housing mix
- Affordable housing/ viability
- Landscaping and arboriculture
- Design and heritage
- Residential amenity
- Lifetime design
- Environmental protection: noise, air quality, and land contamination
- Flood risk and sustainable urban drainage
- Infrastructure requirements
- Connectivity: cycling and walking
- Open space provision
- Ecology
- Archaeology, and
- Sustainable construction
The recommendation to approve the application as set out in the report and update sheet was outlined to the Committee and would be subject to the following:
- Removal of holding objections from the lead local flood authority and highway authority,
- Agreement of all required planning conditions
- The completion of a section 106 legal agreement (including the transfer of land for community use, details of a commuted sum calculation (currently £230,000) in lieu of affordable housing, and a mitigation contribution to the Suffolk Coast Recreation Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.
The Planning Manager emphasised the complexity of the application and that whilst there remained technical objections regarding highways and flood risk, discussions between Officers on those matters were at an advanced stage and Members could be assured that their considerations would be based on the most recently available information.
At the invitation of the Chairman Members asked questions of Officers. Councillors Cooper and Goldson sought clarification of noise mitigation measures, particularly relating to the adjacent extant public house. Officers explained that a 3 metre wall would provide an acoustic barrier and the development would be managed and maintained by the applicant or a management company appointed by them. Environmental Health were content with the proposed mitigations, and the Committee noted that a condition would require the acoustic barrier to be built prior to occupation of the site.
Councillor Rudd asked about how many parking spaces would be on the site, and if there was a shortfall, queried where residents or their visitors would park. Officers explained that whilst there was a shortfall, the development was for age-restricted general market housing and consequently those residents would have lower demand for parking. An illustration was shown of the location of the parking spaces for the bungalows, which each had its own driveway. Visitors would be able to park in public car parks in town and this was a consistent approach to similar recent developments elsewhere in the District. The Planning Manager clarified that the development proposed 53 dwellings with a total of 46 resident and visitor parking spaces on the site. As the site was in the town centre, it was well served with facilities that could be accessed on foot, along with public car parking nearby.
Councillor Ceresa was assured by Officers that it was timely that the outline site for community use be brought forward as part of the hybrid application as a step forward from the allocation already in place. Community Infrastructure Levy opportunities could then explored and the site would be more ready to be developed. The site was of sufficient size to be developed and the applicant had been asked to increase the impermeable area from 1000 to 1400 square metres.
Councillor Ceresa queried that there appeared to be a policy contradiction whereby Local Plan policies WLP 4.1 and 4.5 foresaw development for younger people, which the application did not align with, and there were other sites where the development could be situated instead. The Planning Manager countered that the alternative sites were further away from the town centre and emphasised that other recent approvals would bring 500 family homes to the town, of which 160 would be affordable. Turning to the proposal, the site had proven unfeasible previously for a conventional residential development, consequentially a C3 development was a viable alternative, and there would be an additional community benefit gain from the outline site.
Regarding access, Councillor Goldson queried whether a traffic survey had been undertaken on Saxons Way, as the road was already congested, had three bus stops and was used by the emergency services. He contended that the proposed development would increase traffic around the area, and the proposed additional bus-stop would cause further congestion. The Planning Manager responded that Suffolk Highways was the consultee on road access matters, and whilst Officers were working with them to resolve their technical objections, they had not proposed that a traffic survey be undertaken. Moreover, the Local Plan identified Saxons Way as the appropriate and safe road access to the site.
Councillor Goldson sought two clarifications about Swan Lane, firstly whether a cycle path could be provided alongside; and secondly whether the raised footpath would be upgraded. Officers explained that the minimum width of 3 metres for a cycle path could not be achieved; and that discussions were advanced with Halesworth Town Council regarding public realm improvements identified as a priority in the Halesworth Neighbourhood Plan.
In response to further questions from Members:
- Officers were content with the sizes of the garden and amenity spaces that were proposed, and clarified that as there was no intention to create a gated community, there would be a condition concerning the connectivity of the site.
- In acknowledgement of the consultation response received from Suffolk County Archaeological Unit, there would be substantial archaeological Conditions regarding but not limited to a written scheme of investigation, and a post investigation assessment.
- The Planning Manager was in discussion with healthcare providers regarding Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 funding for a doctors surgery to meet additional healthcare demands. However, it was cautioned that there was a shortage of doctors nationally, and that providers may be better satisfied by an alternative to public funding.
- There would be 10 bungalows in total, 4x1 bed and 6x2 bed. All of the development would satisfy Building Regulation M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings.
- The Maltings development in Halesworth showed that there was a precedent for three-storey buildings in the vernacular.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the applicant's agent Rachel Clare addressed the Committee. Ms Clare explained that the proposed development aligned with the Local Plan and would provide downsizing opportunities in the town, which would consequentially enable vacated family dwellings to come to the market. The developer and Officers were diligently working together to satisfy the holding objections.
Ms Clare was invited by the Chairman to respond to questions from Members. In response to Councillor Cooper, Ms Clare advised that where parking spaces with charging points for electric vehicles were provided, the parking space would not be restricted only to electric vehicles. Councillors Coulam and Goldson sought clarification of the sustainability of the dwellings. Ms Clare explained that the sustainability of the dwellings would be aligned to a building principle of 'fabric first' and would be constructed in accordance with the Energy Statement provided, and Building Regulations. Councillor Ceresa was informed that the developer planned to commence on site during the first quarter of 2023, and that the phased construction timescale would be 12-24 months; and that the gross internal floor space of the apartments would range from 50 to 90 square metres. Councillor Goldson was assured that the developer would comply with the archaeological Conditions.
The Chairman acknowledged that the dwellings would satisfy M4(2) accessibility regulations, but queried whether any individual adjustments would be made by the developer to meet any specific needs of residents. Ms Clare responded that all dwellings would satisfy M4(2) regulations, however the individual needs of each resident could not be known in advance of construction.
There being no further questions to the applicant's agent, the Chairman called upon Members to debate the proposal. As Ward Member, Councillor Goldson opened the debate and acknowledged that the site had in the past proven difficult for developers to bring forward a feasible scheme. Vehicular access to the site was likely to be problematic, and the additional bus stop would arguably cause congestion, however the new pedestrian crossing was welcome. It was concerning that the proposal would not provide sufficient parking and prospective purchasers may not want to give up their vehicles. Councillors Rudd and Plummer echoed the concerns around parking, however Councillor Pitchers countered that prospective purchasers would be aware of the parking provision and only those that were content would purchase a property. Councillor Coulam acknowledged that the proposal for a pre-school was welcome.
Councillors Ceresa, Cooper and Gee were concerned that the application appeared to be premature and sought assurance from the Planning Manager that the application as presented was sufficient. At the invitation of the Chairman, the Planning Manager explained that Officers were content with the application and that the information was sufficient for the Committee to make a robust decision. Members concerns about parking were acknowledged but had been fully considered in the report. Members were made aware that the applicant had previously submitted, but had withdrawn, an appeal for non-determination. The outstanding matters were technical in nature, Officers were confident that they would be resolved, and were not substantial enough to be a reason for a delay in determination.
Councillor Plummer commended the applicant's larger facility in Beccles which demonstrated the potential quality of the proposal, and concurred that the proposal presented an opportunity and choice for existing homeowners to downsize.
Councillor Cooper proposed that the application be approved, Councillor Pitchers seconded the proposal, the Chairman moved to the vote and it was by a majority
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions .
Conditions:
A full suite of conditions and informatives are to be agreed upon receipt of all consultation responses. In summary, these will cover (but are not limited to) the following:
- Time limit for commencement of development – three years
- Reserved matters requirements and time limit for submission- two years
- Phasing plan
- List of approved drawings
- Age limit for residential use (60+ years)
- Details of materials and finishes
- Compliance with ecological mitigation measures
- Restriction on vegetation clearance
- Method statement for translocation of reptiles
- Lighting design strategy
- Ecological enhancement strategy
- Review of ecological receptors on site if development does not commence within three years (or suspended for more than 12 months)
- Archaeology – written scheme of investigation
- Archaeology – post investigation assessment
- Land contamination – full suite of standard conditions
- Cycle storage details and provision
- Bin storage details and provision
- Fire hydrants provision
- Details noise barrier and timing of instalment
- Landscaping scheme (inc. implementation and boundary treatments)
- Landscape management plan
- Detailed planting plans
- Arboricultural method statement
- Sustainable construction/energy saving measures
- M4(2) compliance
- Construction management plan (inc. restriction on hours)
- Electric vehicle charging points
- Highway conditions (tbc) – in relation to access, improvements to Swan Lane, provision of off-site pedestrian crossing upgrades at Swan Lane/Saxons Way, and all other technical requirements
- Drainage conditions (tbc) – drainage strategy and all other technical requirements