Agenda item

Description:

This outline application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the provision of 52 houses and flats and a 72 bed care home.  The recommendation of the officers was to refuse the application.

 

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager advised the Committee that the applicant had submitted two letters and an email raising a number of points in response to the Committee report. The subsequent response to each of the points raised is set out below:

 

1.    Due weight should be given the proposed open space located within the blue line on the site location plan.

 

Response

The open space, is not included within the application site and does not formally comprise part of the proposal subject to the planning application. Even if weight was given to the benefit of the open space, it is not considered that this (together with the other benefits – removal of the industrial uses and provision of new housing) would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt in terms of inappropriate development, loss of openness, harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, and the conflict with 3 out of the 5 Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF.

 

2.    The proposed open space within the blue line could be protected by a Grampian Condition or Section 106 Agreement.

 

Response

The committee report acknowledged in paragraph 7.2 that a condition could be imposed (i.e. a Grampian condition) requiring the area of land outlined in blue to be provided as open space. A Section 106 Agreement could also be used to achieve the same purpose. However, as the open space does not form an integral part of the proposed development and is not within the application site, it is considered that the Council would not be able to refuse a future planning application to relax that condition or legal agreement on the loss of open space grounds.

 

3.    The proposed development would not set a precedent for future similar proposals on other Green Belt sites.

 

Response

It is agreed that each planning application should be considered on its merits.  However planning legislation requires that the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The site is within the Green Belt and the Committee report sets out the reasons why it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. As there is not a unique set of circumstances on this particular site, and given that we have a 5 year housing land supply, it is considered that granting planning permission would set a precedent for similar unacceptable schemes on other Green Belt sites in the Borough.

 

4.    No reference has been made to the Stage 2 of the Green Belt Review which is currently underway.

 

Response

Stage 2 of the Council’s Green Belt Assessment is yet to be completed. It is likely that the consultants (ARUP) will publish their initial report by the middle of September 2018. Local Area 39 also plays an important strategic function in separating a series of distinct towns and villages in the Borough and forms the essential gap between Ashford/Sunbury/Stanwell and Upper Halliford.

 

5.    The reference to the applicant’s “Call for Sites” submission is misleading, as it infers that the applicant’s intention is to pursue development of the entire site.

 

Response

The Call for Sites submission proposed two potential development options – one to develop the whole site and one to develop part of the site, more in line with the proposed development. The comments made in paragraph 7.1 of the committee report are factual observations. They do not infer that the applicant has a long term intention to develop the entire site for housing.

 

6.    The lack of amenity space for the block of flats should not form a reason for refusal at this outline stage

 

Response

It is recognised that this is an outline application and the final design, scale and position of the buildings are not formally agreed at this stage. However, as the applicant has requested that access is a matter which should be determined at this stage, the access roads within the site are formally assessed at this stage. Taking into account the proposed access roads surrounding the indicative block of flats at the front of the site, there would be a relatively small area of remaining land available (approximately 36m x 28m) to accommodate the proposed block of 10 flats and its amenity space. The proposed reason for refusal (no. 3) shows that the applicant has failed to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the LPA, how a minimum amenity space area of 225 sqm could be provided on this part of the site, even after discounting possible balconies from the figure. Any other open space provided on the site is likely to be too remote from the proposed flats to form usable garden space for these particular units.

 

7.    The insufficient number of smaller dwellings should not form a reason for refusal at this outline stage.

 

Response

Whilst the final design, scale and position of the buildings are yet to be confirmed at this outline stage, the applicant has submitted a proposed accommodation schedule comprising 57 dwellings and their sizes (and a 72 bedroom care home) in the application form, and in the Design and Access Statement.  The planning application is seeking approval for “up to 57 dwellings”. Whilst it is possible that the Reserved Matters application may propose a lesser number of units, it is considered necessary for the Council to assess the proposal based on the maximum number of dwellings proposed (i.e. 57) and their sizes, as set out in the accommodation schedule.  The proposed reason for refusal (no. 2) as amended, reflects that the applicant has failed to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the LPA, that there will be sufficient small dwellings to comply with our policy.

 

8.    The application should not be refused on bat survey grounds. The Planning Committee can delegate to officers powers to apply the necessary condition once the final report has been issued.

 

Response

Secondary legislation set out in Circular 06/2005 requires that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the development is established before planning permission is granted. It is noted that a third bat survey is required to be carried out on 25 July 2018 and the issue remains unresolved. The issue cannot therefore be addressed by the imposition of a condition.

 

9.    The proposal should be considered by the Planning Committee as appropriate under Paragraph 145g) of the NPPF 2018.

 

Response

This states that new buildings within the Green Belt are not inappropriate if the development is:

“limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:

? not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or

? not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority. “

 

It is considered that the development would have a significant greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

 

10. Reference should be made to paragraph 136 of the NPPF 2018

 

Response

It is assumed that the applicant’s agent is referring to paragraph 138 and not 136.  This relates to the drawing up or reviewing of Green Belt boundaries and the releasing of Green Belt land for development.  This is not a matter for the Planning Committee in the determination of planning applications, this is a matter for the Local Plan Working Party, the Council’s Cabinet and Council in the consideration of the local plan review.

 

The Planning Development Manager also advised of the following updates to the report as a result of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018.

 

Paragraph 1.4

The advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 2018 is also relevant and consideration should also be given to the draft revised consultation NPPF.

 

Paragraph 7.3

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 47 59 - 61

 

Paragraph 7.4

(para 49 75 of NPPF).

 

Paragraph 7.8

Para 14 11(d) of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.9

In March July of this year, the Government launched the draft revised NPPF, consultation proposals.  This reaffirms the presumption in favour of sustainable development for plan making and decision taking (with some amended wording) and focuses on delivering housing through a plan led system.

 

Paragraph 7.13

Section 9 13 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.14

Paragraph 80 134 of the NPPF sets out the five purposes of the Green Belt. It should also be noted that these purposes are also contained in the draft revised consultation NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.15

It is considered that the proposed dwellings, care home, roadways and other associated works constitute “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt. The proposal does not fit into any of the exceptions stipulated in Paragraphs 89 145 and 90 146 of the NPPF or in Paragraphs 144 and 145 of the draft revised consultation NPPF. It is recognised that part of the existing site comprises the industrial estate, and that Paragraph 89 145 states that the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development, does not constitute ‘inappropriate development’. Paragraph 144 of the draft revised consultation NPPF has amended the section relating to brownfield land in that it now reads:

 

Paragraph 7.16

Paragraph 90 146 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.17

Paragraph 87 143 of the NPPF states that:

 

 "As with previous Green Belt policy, Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”

 

Paragraph 7.18

Paragraph 88 144 of the NPPF states that:

 

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations."

 

Paragraph 7.23

Paragraph 80 134 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.24

paragraph80 134 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.25

paragraph80 134 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.27

Paragraph 80 134 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.28

paragraph80 134 of the NPPF………………

…. Section 9 13 of the NPPF

 

Paragraph 7.31

The Government’s core planning principles are set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). There are 12 core planning principles, which the NPPF states should underpin both plan making and decision-making. One of these principles (8^th bullet point) is:

 

“Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”

 

Paragraph 7.97

The NPPF at para 14 11(d)

 

Amendments to the wording of the reasons for refusal and advice(pages 39 – 40)

 

Reason 1

Amend reference to the NPPF to refer to Section 13 not 9 and to refer to 2018 not 2012

 

Reason 2

It is recommended that the reason for refusal is amended as follows:

 

The proposal fails to provide demonstrate an adequate provision of smaller sized dwellings (one or two bedroom units) will be provided for which there is a need within the Borough. It is therefore contrary to Policy HO4 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Size, Type 2012.

 

Reason 4

Amend reference to the NPPF to refer to 2018 not 2012

 

Amendments to the advice note to read:

 

Decision Making: Working in a Positive and Proactive Manner

In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of the NPPF.  This included the following:-

 

a) Provided pre-application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered;

c) Have suggested/accepted/negotiated amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development and to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area;

d) Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescales or recommendation

 

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, James Good spoke for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

 

·         Bugle Nurseries is an uncontrolled industrial and waste transfer site

·         Reasons for refusal 2 and 3 are not relevant

·         Reason for refusal 4 relating to bats can be dealt with by a standard demolition condition

·         Committee report ignores benefit of dealing with land to the rear – removal of waste transfer station and bund

·         Development at Bugle Public House was approved

·         50% affordable housing proposed

·         70 jobs in care home

·         Lack of objections

·         If approved, it will be referred to the Secretary of State

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Ken Snaith spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

·         Construction waste and mound would be removed, removing an eyesore

·         Will improve land and street scene

·         No remote possibility of land becoming decontaminated and improved otherwise

·         Will provide desperately needed housing and affordable housing

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Dunn spoke as Ward Councillor for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

 

·         Developer has consulted the local community

·         Biggest concern is the existing site

·         Proposal includes a road crossing to Upper Halliford Road

·         It is an industrial site

·         There is a telephone mast on green belt land at the rear

·         Loss of an open view

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

·         Care home needed

·         Need to look at long term effect of the impact of the decision

·         480% increase in footprint, 948% increase in floor space

·         Preferable if planning application was for the whole site rather than part of it

·         Appearance of houses is positive

·         Housing needed

·         Is strongly performing green belt

·         We do have a 5 year housing land supply

·         Not well performing green belt

·         It is unusual that no one is complaining (note: one objection was received

·         *The application was unique, in that it was supported by all but one of the local respondents and their representatives [*amended by the Planning Committee at meeting held on 19 September 2018].

·         Affordable housing proposed

·         The waste transfer station will be removed

·         Will clear up the contaminated site

·         Is a good development

·         Not strongly performing green belt

·         Very comprehensive committee report

·         Excellent consultation

·         Complies with housing policies

·         Precedent concerns / not a precedent

·         This is not a review of the local plan, it cannot be taken out of the green belt

·         Derelict site is not a reason to approve

·         Uncontrolled site

·         Too much building / building on land outside application site

·         Traffic movements on site all day/night

·         If approved, would set a dangerous precedent in the green belt

·         Green Belt should be protected, this is inappropriate development

·         Query over housing sites approved recently in the green belt

 

The Chairman requested that a recorded vote was taken on the motion to refuse the outline application. The voting was as follows:

 

FOR REFUSAL (7)	Councillors R.A. Smith-Ainsley, H.A. Thomson, I.J. Beardsmore, M. Francis, A. Griffiths, M. Madams and R.W. Sider BEM
AGAINST (3)	Councillors C. Barnard, T. Evans and S. Mooney
ABSTAIN (3)	Councillors S. Burkmar, Q. Edgington and N. Islam

 

Decision:

The application was refused, as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the amendments to the wording set out above.

 

*Councillor M. Madams left the meeting after this Item had been debated.

[*amended by Planning Committee at meeting on 19 Sept. ‘18]