Agenda item

To consider an application for the partial demolition and redevelopment of an existing building to retirement living accommodation, 45no. retirement apartments and 11no. retirement cottages with communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

That planning application 2023/2369/FULbe REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the recommendation was to refuse but the Parish Council had supported the application.

The application related to a site in Street which has a number of planning constraints.

The Parish Council had supported the application. However, there were objections from the Highways Development Officer, Nutrient neutrality, Heritage Conservation and the Tree Officer.

The Officer’s Report concluded that overall, the harms associated with the development were concluded to be significant and demonstrable. Despite pre application discussions, the applicant had disregarded the majority of the Officer advice offered. The applicant had failed to respond to consultee issues raised during the lifetime of the application, or to work positively and proactively with the Local Planning Authority to deliver an acceptable scheme at this site. The application was therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s Report.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The first speaker objected to the proposal and made the following points:

• She was one of 7 neighbours that would be overlooked by the retirement building and was speaking on behalf of them all.
• They did not have an issue with the site being developed, but they had concerns with what was proposed and how it would be built.
• Overlooking was a main concern as the tallest part of the development would be at the back of their properties and their gardens would all be overlooked.
• The demolition of the existing buildings would cause noise, dust and vibration for many months.
• The removal of trees will mean there will be a clear line of site to the new building.
• If the issues can be resolved, would support re-development as currently it is a magnate for anti-social behaviour.

The next speaker supported the proposal and made the following points:

• He was the director of the company that owns the Crispin Centre which was acquired by them in 2022.
• It was already dilapidated and the tenants moved out. Subsequently, it was closed.
• Residents of Street regard the redevelopment of the site as a top priority.
• It is a complex and challenging brownfield site which needs a large investment to bring it back into use.
• The homes would provide much needed retirement properties in a sustainable location.
• If not approved, the site will likely remain dilapidated as there are no other competing proposals on the table.

The representative of Street Parish Council was the next to speak. He said the Parish Council supported the application, stating it was an ugly monstrosity which would only decline further if the application was not approved by Members. In addition, the developer would repair three flats located above some High Street shops, bringing them back into use as low-cost housing. Overflow car parking would be available less than a quarter of a mile away.

The Divisional Members were then invited to speak. Their comments included the following:

• There have been no objections from the trustees of the Crispin Hall to the proposal.
• The parking at South Street Car Park needs some development.
• The mural should be retained.
• Understand the Officer’s reasons for refusal but Members need to consider how long the site has been derelict.
• The existing building is ugly and any development will be an improvement.
• Most residents are in favour, as show by the parish survey.
• There are 8 new vehicle charging points in South Street Car Park.
• Most concerns could be addressed and we support the application.

The final speaker was the agent, speaking on behalf of the applicant. Her comments included the following:

• The NPPF requires Local Authorities to give substantial weight to the use of brownfield land within settlements for homes.
• The new government has made it clear we must build new homes and this is a much needed and wanted development on a vacant brownfield site.
• The development sits well within the site and harmonises with character of the area using materials that compliment its setting.
• Car parking provision has been assessed by the applicant as 0.28 spaces per apartment. This development provides 21 spaces which represents 0.48 spaces per unit.
• Phosphate mitigation credits have been secured and can form part of the S106 agreement.

In the discussion which followed some of the comments made included:

• Could negotiations take place with those nearby residents that will be affected by the construction to lessen possible noise, dust, vibration impacts.
• Concerns about the car parking situation and lack of bicycle storage.
• The derelict building is ugly but that does not mean an unsuitable replacement should be approved.
• The Officer has given many sound reasons for refusal and the whole scheme needs to be revisited.
• The threat of non-determination does not sit well. There are significant reasons for refusing this application.
• The site does need redevelopment but this scheme represents over-development. The applicant should work with Officers to find at more suitable and viable scheme.

It was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/2369/FULbe REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous