TUESDAY 14 MAY 2002
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC
DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
|
|
TCP/13520/L P/00287/02 Parish/Name: Newport Registration
Date: 25/02/2002 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer:
Mr. C. Boulter
Tel: (01983) 823568 Outline
for residential development & office accommodation land
at St. Cross Business Park, south of Lower St. Cross Farm and east of, Dodnor
Lane, Newport, PO30 |
Members will recall that consideration of this
application was deferred from the meeting on 23 April, at the applicant's
request. Since that date, a meeting has
been held between Officers, the applicant and his agent as a result of which
additional information is put forward.
The amendments to the report previously submitted are now set out in
bold type.
Site and Location
Irregular shaped site of some 1.6 hectares, with
frontage of 160 metres to Dodnor Lane and about 18 metres to Monksbrook. Northern part of site (i.e. immediately
south of Lower St Cross Farmhouse), has depth of some 43 metres, widening to a
maximum of 105 metres roughly centrally on the Dodnor Lane frontage. Northern part of site is currently occupied
by barns and outbuildings formerly occupied in connection with Lower St Cross
Farm. Adjoining the site to the south
are Enterprise House and the Innovation Centre whilst to the east is the
remaining undeveloped part of the St Cross Business Park and, on the eastern
side of a small stream and landscape corridor, buildings occupied by S P
Systems.
Relevant History
Application for change of use of agricultural
buildings south of Lower St Cross Farm to sales of sand, ballast, cement, ready
mix concrete and plant hire submitted April 1995 and withdrawn in September of
that year, without formal decision.
Development of a large part of current application
site (excluding farm buildings in the north) and land to the south and east for
industrial purposes granted outline consent in September 1996 with various
detailed approvals for infrastructure provision and development of individual
sites granted since that date.
Outline application for residential accommodation and
speculative office building with access from Dodnor Lane and Monksbrook
submitted June 1999 and withdrawn on 15 November 1999, prior to consideration
by Planning and Countryside Committee on the following day.
Outline for mixed use speculative office and executive
housing development refused in April 2001 for reasons of policy, relationship
between proposed residential accommodation and existing employment facilities.
Outline application for office and residential
development recommended for conditional approval (with Section 106 Agreement
regarding sequence of construction) but refused in April 2001 for reasons of
policy and potential conflict between residential and industrial users.
Change of use of farm buildings (the buildings in the
north west corner of the current application site) to Class B1 (Business)
and/or B8 (Storage and Distribution) given conditional approval in August 2001.
Details of Application
Application is submitted in outline, with all matters
reserved for future approval.
Site and proposal very similar to that refused consent
in April 2001. Current application site
excludes a small car parking area fronting onto Morton Brook and although the
same number of dwellings (twelve) is proposed, these are slightly rearranged
and do not include the three "workshop" dwelling units previously
considered.
Overall, proposal seeks consent for four separate
office buildings giving some 2230 square metres gross of business floor space
with associated car parking accessed from a new road constructed between
Monksbrook and Dodnor Lane. To the
north of this new road would be the twelve detached dwelling units, of which
six would front Dodnor Lane with vehicular access grouped in pairs.
As part of application, agent has submitted a series
of comments together with separate document considering previous reasons for
refusal. Both these documents are
attached for Members information. A
separate confidential financial appraisal has been submitted to explain why the
development of the commercial floor space proposed requires the creation of
twelve residential plots to cover the "gap" in funding. Although not part of the public information,
the appraisal is available for Members inspection at the Seaclose offices by
arrangement with the Case Officer.
The suggestion is that the development would be phased
whereby at least 557 square metres of office space would be initially developed
releasing the first six housing plots.
The actual numbers of housing plots released would depend on the floor
space on the basis of one plot per 929 square metres of office space. The next phase would be the construction of
the next office block to a minimum of 1115 square metres in total with the
release of the remaining house plots.
At that stage the infrastructure for the remaining office blocks would
be done.
Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy
Majority of the site is within the development
envelope for Newport defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and
is allocated for employment purposes.
The northern extension of the site adjacent Dodnor Lane, currently
occupied by former farm buildings (about 14% of the overall site) is outside
the development envelope.
Relevant UDP policies are:
S8 - Allocation of
Employment Land.
G1 - Development
Envelopes for Towns and Villages;
G5 - Development Outside
Defined Settlements;
H4 - Unallocated
Residential Development to Be Restricted to Defined Settlements;
H9 - Residential
Development Outside Development Boundaries;
C1 - Protection of
Landscape Character;
E3 - Resist
Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses;
E4 - Mixed Uses to
Promote Employment Development;
TR16 - Parking
Policies and Guidelines.
Although not within, site is, at its nearest, some 40
metres from the boundary of the Medina Valley SSSI.
Representations
Highways Engineer recommends conditions if
approved.
Chief Environmental Protection Officer recommends
refusal because of potential for disamenity to residential occupiers through
relationship with existing and proposed employment uses. Has advised consultation with Environment
Agency.
Contaminated Land Officer has no adverse comment.
Senior Planning Officer (Development Plan) sees no
reason to determine application differently from previous decisions to
refuse. Policy issues arguably stronger
since adoption of the UDP.
Isle of Wight Partnership welcomes further offices at
St Cross but is extremely concerned at any residential development on
site. Not justified as relationship
between houses and commercial could lead to conflict and recent commercial
success suggests market might support speculative development in the near
future. Partnership therefore cannot
support application.
Property Services Manager has taken consultant's
advice which is that the financial assessment submitted by the applicant is
valid; costs subsidy analysis broadly valid; there will be a market for the
houses proposed bearing in mind location and anticipated selling prices.
Environment Agency has no objection in principle, but
suggests conditions regarding surface water disposal, should application be
approved.
The Head of Economic Development comments that St
Cross Business Park has become successful and has enabled Island to attract new
businesses and support growth of existing companies. From an economic development perspective he concurs with views of
Isle of Wight Economic Partnership that new office development of type proposed
is to be welcomed. It would compliment
business park environment and provide additional and much needed modern accommodation. Central issue to be resolved is that of
residential use as enabling element of overall proposal. Whilst there are examples on the Island
where such development has been allowed, he considers this should only occur
where demonstrably necessary and where planning policy would support such
action. In this application this is a
matter which falls to the discretion of the Committee taking into account
Council's planning policies.
Letter on behalf of nearby manufacturing company
lodging vehement objection on grounds of:
Gross violation of
current planning guidelines;
Neglect of duty to
protect needs of industry on Island;
Unemployment in
manufacturing at crisis point;
Site is only
employment land left at St Cross if new building as shown on application plan
goes ahead;
Other companies on St
Cross looking to expand - application site would be most appropriate place;
S P Systems has B2
classification, this was prime reason for relocating to St Cross - should
residential development go ahead complaints from residents may limit industrial
activities contrary to the aims of employment allocation in the UDP; and
Sets out information
from PPGs 4, 12, 23 and 24 to support objection.
Two letters from three residents of Dodnor Lane and
one letter signed by twenty one residents of Riverview Park, objecting on the
following grounds:
Points out several
errors in application form;
No objection to
office buildings;
Precedent for
residential use of employment land if approved;
If there is demand
for offices as applicants claim, should be no difficulty in financing without
need for houses;
Change to character
of lane by access to houses;
Loss of hedgerows and
habitat;
Additional traffic
intolerable on lane 12 feet wide;
No pavements in
Dodnor Lane and therefore hazard to pedestrians, including children who may
live in new houses;
Change of use from
farm buildings should not be a back door for residential use of site;
Offices built by
applicants which are still vacant so question need for more;
Bullen Village is not
the same and should not be regarded as precedent;
Most recent
redundancies in manual not office jobs;
Thirty square metre
reduction of office space proposed compared with 2001 refusal;
Loss of workshops
from three plots have reduced by 180 square metres employment potential; and
Office buildings
south west of Monksbrook shown on earlier submission now replaced by large
industrial building - at least some of earlier office space could be located on
land proposed for housing.
One correspondent has requested that his letter is
read out to Members at the meeting.
This letter is attached in full as an appendix to this report and
Members' instructions are requested as to whether it should be read out as
well.
Evaluation
The notes and comments submitted by the applicant's
agent in conjunction with this application are attached for Members information
and should be given due consideration.
Particular reference is made to the approval for change of use of
existing farm buildings in the northern part of the site, that mixed development
schemes have previously been approved at Westridge/Bullen Cross, that tenants
of existing office buildings on the site are ready to move on and recent job
losses on the Island make it even more critical that office development is
forthcoming.
The question of the approval for the farm buildings
will be addressed later in this report.
The mixed development at Westridge/Bullen Cross is seen to be a
different circumstance in that the employment floor space being created was not
speculative in nature but was required for named occupier/developer. Members may equally recall the attempts to
secure by Section 106 Agreement a link between residential development on
employment land at Teknacron to allow the company to relocate, which have
apparently been unsuccessful.
Similarly, if tenants of existing buildings are coming to the stage
where they need to move on, then arguably a firm market is created therefore
avoiding the need for speculative development and with some certainty of return
from investment. Whilst it is of course
important to look at the overall picture, in terms of recent job losses, this
is exactly what the UDP does in its allocation of employment land and Members
must consider whether the type of mixed development now proposed is appropriate
for such employment allocations.
The notes submitted on the applicant's behalf in
relation to policy in my view simply confirm which policies have been referred
to in the previous reason for refusal and recognise that the Council must use
its discretion in accepting whether development meets policy requirements or
not. They invite Members to consider
that the proposal meets certain policy requirements and that, where it may be
said not to meet policy, to apply different weight to these factors in determining
the application.
The financial appraisal submitted on behalf of the
applicant is an essential part of the submission and is required under Policies
E3 and E4, which have been set out in considerable detail in reports prepared
in connection with previous applications and submitted to Members in November
1999 and April 2001.
Applicant's agents confirm that SEEDA will not
subsidise the speculative office development proposed and therefore housing, as
a means of cross subsidy is the only method by which the required floor space
can be provided. The financial
appraisal submitted by the applicants, which has been analysed by the Property
Services Manager's agent who concludes that:
"..... within
the terms of reference and limitation of this assessment, that the financial
information submitted is valid and accurately reflects land values which might
be expected from the types of use proposed.
The cost subsidy is therefore considered to be broadly valid and I
believe there is a market for the type of housing proposed, bearing in mind
particularly its location, proximity to other industrial units and the
anticipated selling prices."
I would therefore accept, as set out in the report to
Members in April 2001, that the financial appraisal is soundly based and the
proposal will not result in excessive developer profits, should it proceed on
the basis as submitted.
However, this is not the only criterion which must be
adopted in determining the application, and indeed when Members refused the
previous application it was recognised that excessive developer profit would
not occur. However, it was resolved
that the Officers "on balance" recommendation for refusal should not
be accepted, because Members considered that the development outside the
development envelope defined in the Deposit Draft UDP was not justified and
that furthermore the proposal did not meet all the necessary criteria of
Deposit Draft UDP Policies C1, E3, E4, G1, G5(h), G10, H4 and H9. Notwithstanding the previous recommendation
for approval, Members must now consider whether the proposal as submitted
overcomes those policy objections reflected in the reasons for refusal of the
previous application.
The application still involves development of
dwellings outside the development envelope and no other alterations have been
provided in answer to the reasons for refusal, other than an invitation from
the applicant's agent to afford different weight now than in the previous
determination.
In my view, there is a difference between the current
application and that previously refused in that the previous application was
supported by the Isle of Wight Partnership, but the current application is
not. Similarly, although the Principal
Planning Officer (Policy) did not actively support the previous application, he
did consider that the provisos of E3 and E4 would need to be met and
appropriate conditions imposed. He did
point out that part of the site was outside the development envelope/employment
allocation and that a different design/layout solution could achieve
development wholly within the envelope.
The Principal Planning Officer (Policy) now sees no reason to determine
the current application differently from the previous decision to refuse and
indeed suggests that policies are now arguably stronger since the formal
adoption of the UDP. The previous
report recognised that although not all criteria of E3 and E4 were complied
with, there may be benefits to the Island economy through the
"kick-starting" of office development on this site and Members must
once again give due consideration to this issue.
It must however be pointed out that the refusal
decision of the Local Planning Authority is a material consideration along with
the current views of the Partnership and the views of the Principal Planning
Officer (Policy).
The applicant's agent has suggested that the consent
for conversion of the farm buildings in the north of the site to employment
uses has "changed the balance of the application" from that which was
previously refused. I do not agree with
this view. If the applicant's agents
view were accepted, any group of farm buildings which receives consent for
conversion to employment use would then be appropriate for demolition and
development for residential purposes, without policy objection. To accept this argument in my view stretches
the interpretation of Policy C17 beyond breaking point.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the
submitted financial information is realistic and acceptable, the previous
objections to the proposal expressed in Members reasons for refusal of the
earlier application and particularly bearing in mind the expressed opposition
from the Isle of Wight Partnership, the Chief Environmental Protection Officer
and the Principal Planning Officer (Policy) do not render the proposal
acceptable in policy terms. I therefore
continue to recommend refusal, for the same reasons as adopted in respect of
the previous application, determined in April 2001.
At the meeting on 29 April, the applicants undertook
to submit additional information in writing, which Officers agreed to
incorporate into a revised report which would also address in more detail
points raised in the letter submitted with the original application and which
were copied to Members with the original report.
A major issue is the fact that the Officer's
recommendation for this application is for refusal, whilst that for the
previous application considered by Committee was for approval. The major reason for this change is
two-fold. First of all, Members decision
to refuse the previous application is a part of the planning history and a
material consideration in determination of this and other subsequent
applications on the site and that a major consultee (The Isle of Wight
Partnership) now takes the opposite view from that expressed when it supported
the earlier proposal. Whilst the
applicant has his own ideas as to why the Partnership has changed its stance on
this proposal, and has asked that Members should be informed, that is not, in
my opinion a material consideration in determining this application. The fact remains that the views of the Isle
of Wight Partnership are important in determining this application and it is
not for the Planning Authority or its Officers to investigate the reasons for
this change of view.
The applicant and agent point out that SEEDA is unable
now to offer any financial support or grant aid for this type of
development. A copy of a letter from
SEEDA to the applicant has been provided and whilst pleased to note the
proposal to develop, without assistance, the north east corner of the St Cross
Business Park as a mixed use development, SEEDA confirms it has no direct or
intended interest in the site for this proposal other than requiring the
development to continue to be in accordance with the high design standards and
quality already delivered at St Cross Business Park.
Additional funding will be necessary to "bridge
the gap" if this high standard is to continue. There is a demand for purely industrial units but the applicants
view, and this is a view which Members may share, is that this would compromise
the high standards of development achieved on the rest of the site. Whilst speculative office developments on
the mainland are supported by rental values of between £18 and £20 per square
foot, Island rates (£12 - £13 per square foot) do not justify the risk of
speculative development.
The area outside the development envelope, which is
identified as a reason for refusal of the application, supports only three of
the twelve dwellings proposed. The
financial appraisal accepted by Officers recognises the need for twelve
dwellings to subsidise the amount of office floor space proposed and whilst the
applicants have indicated their preparedness to bring these three dwellings
within the development envelope, this would be at the cost of reducing the
amount of land available for employment use.
The redevelopment of the farm buildings (upon which the three dwellings
would be sited) will be a positive gain and, by comparison with their present
condition, enhance the proposals and ambiance of the business park.
Members will have to consider whether the development
of the business park in the manner proposed justifies development outside the
envelope. On that basis, I accept that
fears regarding UDP Policy C17 expressed earlier in this report are less
critical, as the situation regarding relationship of uses (ie employment site,
residential development and converted former farm buildings) is unlikely to
arise in quite this way in the future.
The formal adoption of the UDP since the determination
of the previous application is a relevant issue, although Members may consider
that, as the draft policies used in determining the earlier application were
similar to those now in place, the weight to be put on this point may be
limited.
The agent recognises that the proposal does not meet
all criteria of UDP Policy E4. As
identified in this report, five of the nine points are not complied with, but
the amendment of layout to bring dwellings within the development envelope and
an agreement regarding phasing, would make the proposal compliant with six of
them.
I recognise that a scheme can be in accordance with
the Development Plan even if it only complies with some of its policies. Members accepted this advice from the
barrister when approving the B & Q/College applications. However, it must be shown that the proposal
is broadly achieving the overall aims of the plan and Members will have to
consider the amount of weight to be put on this particular point. Both the applicants and the agent have
provided additional letters, following the meeting with Officers. Both these letters are copied and attached
for Members information including letters from the Isle of Wight Partnership
supporting the previous application and which were attached to the applicants
additional submission.
Clearly a major issue from these letters is overall
compliance with the UDP and the applicants and agent's view that a wide view
should be taken of the development proposals, taking into account the overall
economic benefit of the application, rather than "narrower land use
policies alone."
It must be reaffirmed that the Isle of Wight
Partnership welcomes provision of offices of the type proposed and this view is
supported by the Council's Economic Development Officer whose views are now
available and referred to above. The
sole area of concern is the residential development element, part of which is
outside the development envelope, and the Economic Development Officer rightly
identifies this as an area which the Development Control Committee has to
address in the light of the Council's adopted planning policies.
An important point made by the applicant is that if
the "enabling" residential development is not permitted, the Island
will lose its only business park. Ten
redundancies will be forced if the application is not approved and industrial
space will fill the remaining land at St Cross, rather than quality office
space. Clearly there are difficult
issues to resolve and balances to be struck in the determination of this
application. Officer's view remains
that the recommendation should be for refusal, but if Members apply different
weight to the various issues and accept that the proposal could be approved, it
will be necessary to impose conditions similar to those previously recommended,
eg use restriction to Class B1, landscaping including maintenance of hedges,
submission of details of materials, access, drainage etc and most importantly a
phasing scheme for the overall development.
This would be to ensure that the dwellings are not constructed without
the requisite amount of office space.
The applicants suggest at least 560 square metres (6,000 square feet) of
office space would be developed initially, releasing the first six housing
plots. Actual numbers of housing plots
released would depend on floor space on the basis of one house plot per 93
square metres (1,000 square feet) of office.
The next phase would be the next office block, to a minimum of 1,115 square
metres (12,000 square feet) in total leading to the release of the remaining
housing plots. At that stage,
infrastructure for the remaining office blocks would be provided.
Recognising the degrees of weight to be placed on the
various issues in this matter, my belief is that the areas of conflict with the
adopted UDP, bearing in mind the views of the Isle of Wight Partnership, are
such that my recommendation remains for refusal.
Reason for Recommendation
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all
material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the
proposal for mixed development, involving residential development outside the
defined development envelope, is not acceptable for policy reasons set out
below.
Recommendation -
Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Whilst the Local
Planning Authority will accept mixed uses in certain circumstances to
encourage development of allocated employment sites, it is not satisfied in
this case that the proposed development accords with Policies E3 and E4(b),
(c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
Part of the site
proposed for residential development is outside the development envelope
defined in the Unitary Development Plan and the Local Planning Authority is
not satisfied that there is any justification to warrant the approval of
dwellings in this particular location.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies G1, G5(h), H4, H9 and
C1 of the Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The proposal involves
development for residential purposes in close proximity to buildings/land
with authorisation for unrestricted Class B2 General Industrial Use and the
Local Planning Authority considers that this may lead to unacceptable
nuisance to occupiers of the residential properties and/or undue constraint
on the operators of B2 Uses, contrary to Policies E4(b) and (c) and G10 of
the Unitary Development Plan. |
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment
Services