TUESDAY 23 APRIL 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 |
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mix concrete and plant hire submitted April 1995 and withdrawn in September of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Monksbrook submitted June 1999 and withdrawn on 15 November 1999, prior to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.
Comments of Head of Economic Development and
Environment Agency still awaited at time of writing.
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
recommend refusal, for the same reasons as adopted in respect of the previous
application, determined in April 2001.
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
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