Minutes:
59.1 Application DC/21/03185
Proposal Planning Application. Demolition of existing unlisted buildings and structures and erection ofretirement living accommodation to include associated amenity space, landscaping, parking and vehicular access
Site Location LAVENHAM - Lavenham Press, 47 Water Street, Lavenham, Suffolk CO10 9RN
Applicant McCarthy Stone Retirement Lifestyles Limited
59.3 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the pre-application advice provided to the applicant, the reasons for refusal and the weight given to the lack of affordable housing, the proposed parking provision at the site, the population of Lavenham, the proposed number of dwellings on site, the age of the existing building, whether the existing occupants of the building have identified a relocation site, and the response in the report from NHS England and its relevance to this application.
59.4 Members considered the representation from Irene Mitchell who spoke on behalf of Lavenham Parish Council.
59.5 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the Parish Council raised the issue of the design with the applicants, the condition of the footpaths on Water Street, and the housing needs identified in the Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan.
59.6 Members considered the representation from Abby McKay-Hipwell who spoke as the Applicant.
59.7 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: the pre-application advice given, the design of the buildings and whether the Suffolk Design Guide was consulted, the loss of employment land, the reasons the site was not marketed as employment land, and what engagement took place between the applicant and the community.
59.8 Members considered the representation from Ward Member, Councillor Maybury who spoke against the application.
59.9 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the length of time the site had been available, and whether there had been any interest from developers.
59.10 Members considered the representation from Ward Member, Councillor Arthey, who spoke against the application.
59.11 The Ward Member and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: which of the heritage assets on site were included within the development, and whether the current occupiers of the building would remain in the village.
59.12 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the ownership of the heritage asset on site which is not part of the application, and the dates of the pre-application advice provided by Officers.
59.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the existing employment use of the land, the marketing of the site, the design and density of the proposed development, and the proposed number of dwellings on site compared to the number identified in the Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan.
59.14 Councillor Beer proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
59.15 Councillor Holt seconded the proposal.
59.16 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan, heritage issues, the Suffolk Design Guide, loss of existing employment land, the lack of affordable housing proposed at the site, and the reasons for refusal.
59.17 Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the reasons for the lack of affordable housing and Company Infrastructure Levy contribution.
59.18 The Proposer and Seconder agreed to the following amendment to the reasons for refusal:
Delegate to the Chief Planning Officer to review for final wording based on original recommendation.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission and authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to review the final wording based on the original recommendation which reads as follows:
Babergh’s Local Plan Policy EM24 states: “Planning applications to redevelop or use existing or vacant employment land, sites and premises for non-employment purposes, will only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate that their retention for an appropriate employment use has been fully explored.
”In this instance, the applicant has neither marketed the site, nor demonstrated that it is unsuitable or not viable for all forms of employment-related use. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy EM24.
Policy CN01 states: “All new development proposals will be required to be of appropriate scale, form, detailed design and construction materials for the location.”
Core Strategy Policy CS15 repeats this, by stating that development should: “ i) respect the landscape, landscape features, streetscape / townscape, heritage assets, important spaces and historic views; ii)make a positive contribution to the local character, shape and scale of the area…”
Lavenham’s Neighbourhood Plan Policy D1 states, inter alia, that: “All development proposals will be expected to preserve and enhance Lavenham’s distinctive character.” These sentiments are also echoed in its Policy H1.
Paragraphs 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act state that the local planning authority shall have special regard to terms of preserving a listed building (including its setting) and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
Paragraphs 197, 199, 200, 202 and 203 of the NPPF describe the way in which local planning authorities should have due regard to sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and give guidance as to how any harm can only be outweighed by public benefits.
This approach is echoed in Babergh’s Local Plan Policy CN08 which states: That development which have an impact on views into or out of a conservation area should: “preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area or its setting” and is also within DP1 which asks that the scale and character of the proposal: “respects the landscape, landscape features, streetscape/townscape, heritage assets and important spaces and historic views into and out of the village” and that “the proposal will make a positive contribution to the local character, shape and scale of the area.”
In this instance, it is proposed to erect a two-storey building, larger than the existing commercial premises, dwarfing the dwellings on Water Street. This represents an overdevelopment of the site, out of character for this part of Lavenham with a scale, and form out-of-keeping with adjacent and nearby buildings. In addition, the existing 47 Water Street has been excluded from the development, isolating it with insufficient space around the property.
The Landscaping scheme shows bitmac and tarmac within the site and the car parking for the scheme appears unattractive and utilitarian in appearance.
As such, the development would cause harm to heritage assets – listed buildings and the conservation area – and is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Babergh Local Plan Policy CN08 and Core Strategy Policy CS15 and Lavenham’s NP policies D1 and H1.
The proposal is also contrary to Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)Act 1990, which states that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the LPA shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The benefits of housing supply and improved residential amenity are not sufficient to outweigh this heritage harm and, as such, the proposal offends Paragraphs 197, 199, 200, 202 and 203 of the NPPF.
Policy CS19 of Babergh’s Core Strategy states that developments of this size require a contribution to affordable housing by way of a percentage of units within the scheme or alternatively a commuted sum for an off-site provision. Lavenham’s NP Policy H3 echoes this “in order to facilitate a cohesive community affordable housing must be designed to be integral to the development as a whole.” Neither units nor a commuted sum has been offered with this development, contrary to CS19, LNP H3 the aims of the NPPF.
Babergh’s Core Strategy Policy CS15 states that developments should “minimise the exposure of people and property to the risks of all sources of flooding by taking a sequential risk-based approach to development, and where appropriate, reduce overall flood risk and incorporate measures to manage and mitigate flood risk” and also “minimise surface water run-off and incorporate sustainable drainage systems(SUDs) where appropriate”
In this instance, insufficient information has been submitted with regards to surface water flooding by way of flood risk assessment. This is contrary to the above policy as well as paragraph 167 of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: