Issue - meetings

Demolition of the buildings on site excluding the Grade II listed Adminstration Building and locally listed buildings (Roseneath and Norton Lees); refurbishment of listed buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (comprising 110 flats) and including a basement carpark with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping of the site (amended description).

Listed Building Consent for the demolition of the buildings on site excluding the Grade II listed Adminstration Building and locally listed buildings (Roseneath and Norton Lees); refurbishment of listed buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (comprising 110 flats) and including a basement carpark with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping of the site (amended description).

RECOMMENDATION; refuse permission for both applications (namely the planning application HGY/2013/0061 and Listed Building Consent application HGY/2013/0068.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the demolition of the buildings on the above site excluding the Grade II listed Administration Building and locally listed buildings; refurbishment of Listed Buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (providing 110 flats) and a basement car park with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to refuse permission for both the planning application and the Listed Building Consent application.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report and drew the Committee’s attention to a tabled document which had been unavailable at the time of agenda dispatch. This included a revised affordable housing offer for the site submitted by the applicant, Hanover Housing Developments Ltd, on 1 July and a number of additional responses received during the consultation period. A revised officer recommendation was also included within the tabled report, unchanged in recommending refusal of both applications but making this subject to the Mayor’s Office raising no objections to the Council’s draft decision to refuse planning permission.

The Planning Officer outlined that the primary grounds for the recommendation to refuse both applications was the lack of progress in negotiating with the applicant an acceptable affordable housing offer for the site that would be in line with Council policies setting out a borough wide affordable housing target of 50% and also met the particular recognised need for additional general needs affordable housing units in the west of the borough. Confirmation was provided that despite the revised offer from Hanover Housing constituting an increase in the original level of affordable housing proposed for the site from 24 units to 51, the units would be provided solely as affordable housing for the over 55s and not the general needs housing units originally proffered. Confirmation was provided that the Council had not identified or evidenced a significant need for additional over 55s housing provision within the borough. Officers outlined the extensive efforts made both prior to the sale of the site and before the submission of the planning application to clearly convey the Council’s expectations for the site in relation to affordable housing provision. Protracted negotiations had also been held in this regard following the submission of the application. Officers outlined that the fundamental divergence on the position of affordable housing provision related to the lack of agreement between the applicant and the Council in relation to assessments of the viability of the scheme underpinning the original affordable housing offer. The Council additionally had not been provided with an updated study supporting the revised affordable housing offer put forward by the applicant. As a knock on, negotiations had been unable to progress towards the agreement of a s106 legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42