Minutes:
44.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/06519
Proposal Planning Application – Construction of 41no. Retirement Living apartments for older persons including communal facilities, access, car parking and associated landscaping. Conversion and restoration of Belle Vue House to form 2no. dwellings (following partial demolition)
Site Location SUDBURY – Belle Vue House & Old Swimming Pool, Newton Road, Sudbury, CO10 2RG
Applicant Churchill Retirement Living Ltd
44.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the history of the site, proposed access to the site, the proposed parking plans, appearance, design and internal layout of the retirement apartments, the proposed drainage strategy and landscaping plans, amenity space, heritage issues, the impact of the development on the existing townscape, highways issues, and the officer recommendation of approval as detailed in the report.
44.3 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the loss of open space and the proposed plans to improve open space provision, the proposed demolition of the existing extension, the lack of affordable housing, the timeline for the completion of the works to the park entrance in relation to this development, the topography of the site, the impact of the proposed buildings on the existing and previous townscape, the height of the proposed buildings, the sustainability conditions applicable to the application, proposed parking plans, and the proposed surface water drainage scheme.
44.4 The Senior Transport Planning Engineer provided clarification to Members regarding the proposed parking plan and the traffic assessment.
44.5 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: heritage and conservation issues, whether Sudbury has a Neighbourhood Plan in place, parking and highways issues including any proposed improvements, arrangements for waste collection, and the assessment of planning policies relating to the application.
44.6 A break was taken from 12:17pm until 12:31pm.
44.7 Members considered the representation from Ellen Murphy who spoke on behalf of Sudbury Town Council.
44.8 The Town Council representative responded to question from Members on issues including: the number of signatures included on the petition and the number of online objections to the application.
44.9 Members considered the representation from Laura Knight who spoke as an Objector.
44.10 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: what the residents would like to see at the site, and Belle Vue Action Group’s concerns regarding the entrance to the site.
44.11 Members considered the representation from Lisa Matthewson who spoke as the Agent.
44.12 The Agent , and the applicant John McElholm, responded to questions from Members on issues including: the housing need assessment carried out, the lack of affordable housing, whether there would be warden support on site for residents, the potential number of employees, the proposed car parking provision, the viability of the development, the timescales for occupancy of the dwellings and completion of the conversion of Belle Vue House, the height of the building, loss of existing landscaping, the total number of bedrooms, whether a car share scheme and installation of defibrillators could be considered by the applicant, and the location of the storage area for mobility scooters.
44.13 Members considered the representation from Suffolk County Council Councillor Jessie Carter.
44.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sue Ayres who spoke as the Ward Member.
44.15 Members debated the application on issues including: parking, traffic and highways issues, the benefits of the development to Sudbury, the lack of support from local residents, the loss of landscaping and open space, the design of the building, heritage issues, and the safety of the adjacent road junction.
44.16 Councillor Lindsay proposed that the application be refused.
44.17 Councillor Beer seconded the motion.
44.18 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the economic benefits of the development, car parking, the previously approved application in respect of the entrance to Belle Vue Park, the lack of affordable housing, the design of the development, and the impact of the development on the townscape.
44.19 The Chief Planning Officer and the Planning Lawyer reminded Members that an evidence-based reason for refusal was required.
44.20 A break was taken from 14:13am until 14:31pm to enable the proposer and seconder to discuss the reasons for refusal with the Chief Planning Officer.
44.21 The Chief Planning Officer read out the reasons for refusal as detailed below:
1. The proposed retirement living building would be unduly dominant and its massing, scale and location would unacceptably impact upon the heritage character and setting of Grade 2 listed buildings and undesignated heritage assets within King Street and the Grade 1 Church of St Peter causing less than substantial harm to those assets to the detriment of future generations. The proposed retirement living building would moreover cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of Sudbury Conservation Area by reason of its scale massing and location. On that basis contrary to NPPF 202, saved LP policies CN01 CN06 CN08 and Core Strategy policy CS15.
2. The application and accompanying evidence fails to demonstrate that the provision of a contribution towards affordable housing within the scheme proposal would render the development unviable. The absence of such case specific evidence and viability information precludes the Council from assessing whether policy CS19 of the BDC CS has been satisfied and it is not considered appropriate to rely upon the general evidence information relating to a development plan which is still being examined. On that basis the absence of contribution or inclusion of affordables is unacceptable and contrary to policy CS 19.
Delegate to the CPO to finalise the above mentioned reason for refusal and to prepare reason for refusal related to the loss of TPO preserved trees.
44.22 Councillor Lindsay and Councillor Beer accepted the reasons for refusal.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 5 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed retirement living building would be unduly dominant and its massing, scale and location would unacceptably impact upon the heritage character and setting of Grade 2 listed buildings and undesignated heritage assets within King Street and the Grade 1 Church of St Peter causing less than substantial harm to those assets to the detriment of future generations. The proposed retirement living building would moreover cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of Sudbury Conservation Area by reason of its scale massing and location. On that basis contrary to NPPF 202, saved LP policies CN01 CN06 CN08 and Core Strategy policy CS15.
2. The application and accompanying evidence fails to demonstrate that the provision of a contribution towards affordable housing within the scheme proposal would render the development unviable. The absence of such case specific evidence and viability information precludes the Council from assessing whether policy CS19 of the BDC CS has been satisfied and it is not considered appropriate to rely upon the general evidence information relating to a development plan which is still being examined. On that basis the absence of contribution or inclusion of affordables is unacceptable and contrary to policy CS 19.
Delegate to the CPO to finalise the above mentioned reason for refusal and to prepare reason for refusal related to the loss of TPO preserved trees.
Supporting documents: