AGENDA ITEM 5(a) – ITEMS DEFERRED FROM THE LAST MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/1870G/P2258/02 – DEMOLITION OF BUILDING; CONSTRUCTION OF 8 FLATS, 23 HOUSES WITH PARKING; ALTERATIONS TO VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS – NEWEY & EYRE LIMITED, ST JOHNS ROAD, NEWPORT.
TCP/12986K/P22590/02 – THREE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE OFFICE ACCOMMODATION ON GROUND FLOOR WITH 8 FLATS OVER; THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 5 FLATS & 5 MAISONETTES, PARKING; ALTERATIONS TO ACCESS, FORMER BUILDER CENTRE, ST JOHNS ROAD, NEWPORT.
INTRODUCTION
Members will recall that these two applications were considered at the Development Control Committee meeting on 4 February 2003, at which time the resolution was to defer consideration to allow further negotiations with the applicants over a number of significant issues. The Development Control Manager wrote to each agent and copies of his letters are attached as Annex A for Members information. The issues identified on each site for further discussion are as follows:
Newey and Eyre
· Members disappointment with the layout which lacks innovation principally due to significantly high density. Design of individual blocks poor and capable of significant improvement;
· Concerns regarding access onto St Johns Road;
· Scheme fails to provide adequate open space or communal children’s play area;
· More attention to be given to boundary treatment and soft/hard landscaping where the site adjoins Elm Grove and the boundaries of properties fronting St Johns Road;
· Concern that foul sewage/surface water drainage arrangements should be satisfactory, and acceptable to the relevant consultees;
· Scheme of this size should make provision towards improved pedestrian routing and safety in the locality, particularly in connection with the nearby school and recreation ground.
The Development Control Manager pointed out the possible benefits to be obtained from a comprehensive scheme for the redevelopment of the site in conjunction with the adjoining land to the north and west, presently in separate ownership. Detailed areas to be covered in any discussions were examined, and Members expectation that the appropriate transport infrastructure payment, required under UDP policies, should be paid in connection with this particular development.
Builder Center
· Poor quality of layout and design;
· Balconies/verandahs at first floor on north facing elevation leading to overlooking and loss of privacy for adjoining occupiers;
· Concern at adequacy of access into St Johns Road (notwithstanding views of the Highways Engineer);
· Inadequate provision for open space and communal children’s play area;
· More attention to boundary treatment and landscaping on common boundaries with adjoining residential properties;
· Concern that foul sewage/surface water drainage arrangements should be satisfactory and acceptable to consultees;
· Need for improved pedestrian routing and safety in the locality particularly in connection with nearby school and recreation ground.
Advice was given by the Development Control Manager as to how these issues might be addressed in any negotiations. Again, he suggested consideration of the benefits of a comprehensive scheme for redevelopment of the site in conjunction with the land to the south and west (in separate ownerships) and pointed out also that Members expect to see the appropriate transport infrastructure payment provided in accordance with UDP policies.
As a result of these letters, a meeting was held on the 10 February, at which both applicants and their professional advisors were present, together with the Development Control Manager, Case Officer and Area Officer from the Development Control Section. As a direct result of that meeting, letters from both applicants together with drawings showing some revisions to the proposals have been received. Copies of these letters are attached for Members information, at Annex B.
ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS SINCE FIRST CONSIDERATION
Since the debate on these two applications, further letters have been received from three local residents, raising issues of boundary treatment adjacent 3 Woodbine Villas (referred to subsequently in this report), car parking, (referred to subsequently in this report) and pointing out some errors in the original report to Committee in respect of the Newey and Eyre site. These errors relate to reference to the proposed flats being located in the north east corner of the Newey and Eyre site, whereas they actually proposed for the north west of the site and in the sixth paragraph of page B1-10, the north and south references and reversed. This gives the impression that the existing properties are on the north side of Elm Grove with the proposed properties to the south whereas the correct situation is the opposite, with the existing properties on the south side of Elm Grove with the proposed properties to the north. The point made in that paragraph, that the proposed dwellings on the north side of Elm Grove will not lead to additional overshadowing of the existing properties to the south of Elm Grove, still holds good.
ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES
In this section, I have identified the issues on which negotiations were required and set out the response of each applicant and any amendments to the scheme which have been put forward.
Comprehensive Scheme
Both applicants indicate they have considered the other’s scheme in the preparation of their proposals. However they see no opportunity for a single application for a joint development on both sites. The question of incorporating the adjoining land (owned by the Isle of Wight Council) to the west was discussed but discounted by both applicants. The Housing Association indicate that they have previously sought to negotiate for purchase of this site but the need to “buy out” certain rights of the Scout Group over parts of the land have meant that negotiations have been unsuccessful. Effectively, it is argued that the cost of buying out the covenants, together with the cost of purchase of the land, are greater than the value of the site to the Association.
Comment:
Although each applicant has recognised the other’s scheme, discussions have been unable to achieve a comprehensive development.
Density/Layout
Newey and Eyre – High density is required to help offset additional cost of redevelopment of brownfield site. High densities help to provide low cost rented accommodation and density of approximately 59 dwellings per hectare does not greatly exceed the 50 units per hectare recommended in government advice. Topographical characteristics of the site restrict variations in layout.
Comment:
As indicated in the previous report, officers consider that the density proposed is acceptable within the context of the area. All dwelling houses have private gardens and the flats have reasonable amenity spaces at the rear, for washing lines etc. and each property, including the flats, is provided with an outside storage shed. Local Planning Authorities are encourages to make use of higher densities, in order to make best use of urban land and two relieve pressure on green field sites.
Builder Center – Densities proposed are comfortable within this site and confirm with government guidelines and the condition imposed on the earlier outline planning permission for development of this site.
Comment:
Condition on earlier outline for this site required minimum density to be in excess of 50 units per hectare. Again, similar to the Newey and Eyre site, adoption of such densities makes best use urban land reduces pressure for development on green field sites.
Design
Newey and Eyre – Only significant alteration to appearance of buildings is the amendment of the block on plots 1-4 in the northwest corner of the site to become purely two storey accommodation, rather than two storey with accommodation in the roof. This means that three bedroom dwellings are now proposed rather than 3 / 4 bedrooms as previously. Coloured elevations are submitted showing contrasting brick work to help give a “Victorian” feel. Details of brick quoins, banding and arches over windows are also shown.
Comment:
Design proposals fundamentally the same as previously considered by Committee. No change to blank a gable elevations on units 4, 6 and 23, where they closely adjoin the estate road. Changes can be summed up as presentational, rather than substantive.
Builder Center – Applicants design principle was that simple small units to satisfy first time buyer market require simple plans. Alterations proposed now include hipped roofs to reduce mass, decorative brickwork and timber boarding to alleviate front elevation, a cupola added to the roof of the eastern building as a design feature, alterations to fenestration, removal of balcony on north elevation of eastern block – this simply becomes a flat roof with no doors opening onto it. This could be covered by condition. Bedrooms move to north and living rooms to south to reduce overlooking of nearby residential properties, ground levels mean that appearance from access road will be basically two storey.
Agent has indicated that coloured perspectives of the scheme, to illustrate its appearance, will be submitted for consideration by Members.
Comment:
Proposals still constitute two large single buildings. The hipped roofs, rather than gables do reduce roof impact and the proposed cupola does “draw the eye” although it is not a feature common on the residential properties in the vicinity. Other design changes, including timber boarding and window alteration are “cosmetic” and could be said to be some improvement. The reorientation of the eastern block, to provide bedroom windows on the northern elevation and prevent access to the flat roofed areas are positive benefits and should significantly reduce potential for overlooking. The latter point would need to be covered by condition, should approval be granted.
Overall, potential for overlooking and loss of amenity of nearby residential properties has been recognised and addressed; introduction of hipped roofs has reduced in some degree the mass of the buildings but other design changes are mostly cosmetic.
Access
Newey and Eyre – Consultations at every stage with the Highway Engineers who have confirmed acceptance of the proposal. Volume of traffic generated by this development and that of adjoining land will be less than volume of traffic when both sites in commercial use. Confirm not in a position to improve access onto St Johns Road beyond what is shown in the application.
Comment:
Highway Engineer has recognised that proposal will not result in increased traffic using access onto St Johns Road, which cannot be improved without the purchase of additional land. Without his support, refusal on grounds of inadequate access would be difficult to substantiate.
Builder Center – Have had discussions regarding alterations to road junction and entrance to site but level changes render these impossible. Highway department has no problem with the layout.
Comment:
Once again, Highways Engineer accepts that traffic generation from the proposed development will be less than when site was in commercial use and raises no technical objections. Again, without his support, refusal on access or highways grounds would be difficult to substantiate.
Open Space
Newey and Eyre – Have considered recreation space separate from private gardens but as site is adjacent large area of open space within easy walking distance felt there was no need for additional provision. Although Members request further open space, it is not possible to incorporate this within the site nor within the adjoining site. A jointly owned and managed recreation area would be difficult to manage. Suggest that a financial contribution could be made to the Isle of Wight Council to enable play or recreation space to be made available on adjoining land already in the Council’s ownership. It has been identified as a site suitable for disposal and Housing Association would propose a contribution of £5000 (matched by applicants for adjoining site) which could be subject to a Section 106 agreement.
Builder Center – Have discussed new open space and linkage to existing previously but no acceptable solution has been reached. Agree that a contribution of £5000 could be made towards open space provided by Isle of Wight Council, in conjunction with adjoining applicant. This would provide £10,000 in total and would form part of a Section 106 agreement. Applicants lawyers have agreed to enter into a Section 106 agreement as a contribution towards “the provision or improvement of children’s’ play equipment and/or recreational facilities and/or works associated therewith within the locality.”
Applicants also indicate willingness to provide cinder pathway from scout hut area to recreation ground prior to occupation of first house on either site.
Comment:
Clear that neither applicant is prepared to amend proposals to incorporate open space/children’s play within their site. Housing Association would provide gardens for play for smaller children and improved access to recreation ground to west would allow opportunities for play by older children. The suggested contribution of £10,000 to the provision of a play area in conjunction with the development of the land owned by the Isle of Wight Council to the west of the Newey and Eyre site, does put an obligation on the Council to provide those facilities which are felt to be desirable. If the facilities are not provided within 5 years of the payment of the monies, normal practice is that the money would be returned with interest. Any spending would need to be in accordance with Parks and Gardens Emerging Play Strategy.
Landscaping/Boundaries
Newey and Eyre – Consider exact requirements would be dealt with through planning conditions in usual manner. Site plan submitted provides more detailed proposals including revisions to boundary treatments. Perimeter hedging shown to be hawthorn, blackthorn or similar with new hawthorn hedge on Elm Grove frontage, eastern boundary (adjoining 3 Woodbine Villas) specified as 1.8 metre high close boarded fence. Happy to accept condition requiring agreement of species, details or alternatives treatments as required.
Comment:
Framework landscaping proposed would appear satisfactory and is normal practice to cover details of species etc. and exact locations together with details of hard surfaced treatments by planning condition. Although 1.8 metre high fence shown on eastern boundary, again, details of specification and timing of construction can be covered by condition.
Builder Center – Applicants confirm high accent on landscaping where possible and will accept landscaping condition with any permission. Plan submitted shows planting areas, including within the car park for the offices and shows 2 metre high screen fence on the boundary between the site and rear gardens of properties fronting Albert Street. Comment that 2 metre high brick wall along whole of northern boundary will not be possible because of the ground conditions beneath. This would involve foundations of some 3-4 metres deep. Suggest concrete block wall 2 feet in height with close boarded fencing above which would be managed, together with the landscaped areas and parking areas by a management company. An iron rail would be placed in front of the wall, to assist in car safety. This solution is the best balance between privacy and safety.
Comment:
Details of species and exact locations of planting and hard surface treatment can quite properly be covered by condition, if approval is granted. Conditions originally recommended required the details of the northern boundary wall to be submitted for approval and such requirement could be extended to other boundaries if necessary. The solution proposed regarding safety and screening on the northern boundary, would appear acceptable.
Car Parking
Newey and Eyre – 31 Spaces proposed for 31 dwelling units.
Builder Center – 1 space proposed per living unit and 8 spaces for the offices.
Comment:
Although not the subject of negotiation in the Development Control Managers letter, there was some discussion on this issue and it has been raised again in further representations. The car parking provision is properly laid out and spaces are of adequate size. The levels of provision are in accordance with the Council’s adopted UDP guidelines and refusal on the grounds of inadequate car parking could not be supported.
Drainage
Newey and Eyre – Apart from the letter from Southern Water confirming acceptance of both foul and surface water drainage proposals, applicants have now provided a copy of the drawing which was used to reach agreement with Southern Water. Confirm that all information on drawing is accurate and has been accepted by Southern Water. Suggest this should be satisfactory for the purposes of the application.
Builder Center – Applicants confirm that surface and foul water disposal method has been agreed with Southern Water. Applicants Consulting Engineer has provided confirmation that Southern Water has agreed to connection of foul and surface water drainage to the public sewer in Albert Street and a plan showing routes, together with capacity calculations has also been submitted.
Comment:
The appropriate consultee has accepted that the sites can be properly drained and technical details have been submitted. In these circumstances, a refusal on grounds on inadequate drainage, or inadequate information regarding drainage, could not be substantiated.
Pedestrian Routes
Newey and Eyre – Note concerns regarding provision of improved pedestrian routing and safety, particularly in connection with the recreation ground. Draw Members attention to the site plan which shows footpath to adoptable standards along the front of units 24-31 and extending to the boundary of the land in the ownership of the Isle of Wight Council. Understand that applicants in respect of adjoining site offered to provide steps to the adoptable highway to allow access from their site to the adjoining land. Understand also they are offering to make up the footway from the Council’s land to the recreation ground to the west which will clearly provide safe access to the recreation area pending future provision of separate recreation space.
Builder Center – Developers quite happy to provide steps and crossing from their site to the new pathway proposed on the Newey and Eyre site. This will provide access across the car park in an informal form. Will also assist in providing a cinder pathway from the scout hut area to the recreation ground prior to occupation of first house on either site.
Comment:
Provision of a footpath link as now suggested will allow formal access from the sites to Nine Acres recreation ground. It will also facilitate more easily the use of the land for access to Nine Acres School. The construction of this route can be secured by the imposition of a grampian condition, should approval be granted.
Transport Infrastructure
Newey and Eyre – Scheme has been submitted for grant funding to housing corporation on the basis of maximum acceptable limit under housing corporations current total cost indicators. Transport infrastructure payment not identified prior to submitting bids for grant funding and any additional costs have an adverse effect on the overall viability of the bid as submitted. Scheme design to meet housing need in Newport town centre one of the highest priorities within the Council’s Housing Strategy Statement. No option to increase rents to offset additional charges such as transport infrastructure charge as housing corporation as regulators are trying to drive rents down. Request that Members do not require a transport infrastructure payment, particularly in light of the offer to make a payment of £5000 towards offsite recreation provision.
Comment:
It appears that the requirement to provide £23,250 towards the UDP requirement for a transport infrastructure payment is critical to the financial viability of the scheme and could prejudice the provision of 31 much needed affordable housing units close to Newport town centre. My previous report suggested that in such a balance, the benefits to the community of the housing provision should outweigh the benefits from the transport infrastructure payment. As required by Members, the issue has been raised with the applicants who have indicated that they are not prepared to provide such a payment. It will therefore have to be decided whether the lack of such a payment, which could be substantiated as a reason for refusal, outweighs the housing benefits.
Builder Center – Under no circumstances will the applicants pay any money into the transportation fund. As there was no requirement in the outline permission dated 2 September 2002 for such a contribution applicants propose to make no payment.
Comment:
The circumstances regarding the requirement for transport infrastructure payment was set out in the report previously considered by Members. Clearly negotiations on this site are at an end. Members will have to decide whether the previous history of the site and discussions and other benefits to be achieved from the proposed development outweigh the benefits to be gained from a contribution of £21,500 to the sustainable transport fund. If Members feel they do not, then refusal on this ground could be supported.
CONCLUSIONS
Members will recall that my recommendation on each of the two applications when originally considered was for conditional approval. It will also be seen from this report, that the request for negotiations on a number of significant issues has failed to result in any appreciable alterations to the schemes. Applicants each express view that in density terms, schemes achieve the levels required by current national and local policies, reflect the requirements to ‘recycle’ and make best use of urban land. The layout proposed on each site remains the same and the design changes to the proposed buildings can best be described as cosmetic. I am disappointed there has been no improvement to the gable elevations close to the roads on the Newey and Eyre site, and although the impact of the roofs on the Builder Centre site has been reduced, there has been no change to the principle of layout or development. Having said that, there has been some success in reducing the opportunities for overlooking and loss of privacy, by the deletion of access to the proposed flat roof on the northern side of the eastern block and which if approved, would need to be the subject of condition and the reorientation of the western block.
The access to the site from St Johns Road cannot be altered without additional land and is satisfactory to the Highways Engineer. Landscaping details, together with those for boundary treatment can be covered by condition and car parking is in full accordance with the UDP requirements.
Details of consultee responses regarding drainage connections have been provided, along with plans showing the drainage system. Within the context of planning legislation, the information submitted in satisfactory and the details of provision are covered by legislation and authorities. Densities proposed are acceptable within the context of government advice and location in close proximity to Newport town centre. Proposals have been submitted for improvements to pedestrian routes of the playing field and school to the west and these can be covered by condition, should approval be granted. Neither applicant is prepared to devote space within his site to play area or open space. However each has indicated willingness to contribute £5000 to a fund for the Council to provide appropriate provision within the area, in accordance with the Parks and Gardens Emerging Play Strategy. There has however been no movement on transport infrastructure payments and Members must recognise that if they wish to approve the applications, then no such payment will be forthcoming.
My original recommendation on each of the applications was formulated in the light of the benefits of development at these sites for housing and mixed development was for conditional approval and I must continue to support that view.
From the above however it will be seen that little progress has been made in negotiations on the issues which were of concern to Members during their previous consideration of the applications. If, notwithstanding the benefits to be achieved from the much needed housing accommodation within Newport, Members consider that proposals to be unsatisfactory, then refusal could be supported on the following grounds:
· Layout unsatisfactory resulting in an unacceptable form of development lacking in interest and character and failing to achieve a fully comprehensive scheme;
· Design of individual buildings unacceptable and resulting in bland design without character or interest;
· Lack of transport infrastructure payment as required under Appendix G of the Unitary Development Plan.
Should Members decide to approve either or both of the applications, a Section 106 agreement would need to be drawn up as set out earlier in this report and no decision issued until that agreement was completed. Additional conditions would also need to be imposed regarding provision of the footpath links to the land to the west, appropriate boundary treatment, and to prevent the flat roof of the eastern block on the Builder Centre site from being used as balconies.
Should Members decide to defer consideration for further discussions, each applicant could appeal to the Secretary of State regarding non-issue of a decision within the prescribed time scale.
RECOMMENDATION
For consideration.