Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the car park, commercial unit and open space at the junction of Kerswell Close and St. Ann's Road and provision of 25 new Council rent homes and an Adult Care Hub in two, four and five-storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space within the Kerswell Close Estate.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered the application for the redevelopment of the car park, commercial unit and open space at the junction of Kerswell Close and St. Ann's Road and provision of 25 new Council rent homes and an Adult Care Hub in two, four and five-storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space within the Kerswell Close Estate.

Gareth Prosser, Planning Officer, introduced the report. In response to the points raised by councillors, the following responses were provided:

·         Some members noted that Block B would not have a lift and that, therefore, not all of the homes would be accessible. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that planning policy did not require all buildings to have lifts. It was noted that three storeys of stairs was considered to be acceptable and it was commented that the proposed stairs would be wide and would have hand rails. It was added that residents who were unable to use stairs would be placed on the ground floor. The applicant team noted that, of the several hundred applicants in Band A on the housing waiting list, fewer than 40% were wheelchair users. It was explained that the reason for including an adult care hub was to ensure that immediate support could be provided. It was noted that there was no requirement for a lift in a four storey building but that the internal sizing of the scheme aimed to ensure that, through the allocations policy, units could be allocated to make sure that those with the greatest need and vulnerability were suitably allocated.

·         In relation to a question about the maintenance of gardens, the Head of Development Management noted that there was a condition requiring a management programme for landscaping which would be enforceable. The applicant team added that the contractor and the Housing Delivery Team would have a minimum five year liability period to maintain the new landscaped areas and, following discussions with the Housing Asset Team, there was confidence that there would be sufficient resources for this.

·         In relation to the view of the site from St Ann’s, it was confirmed that this would be partially screened by a mature, Category B ash tree. The Planning Officer explained that the tree would soften the appearance of the building but would not provide complete shielding.

·         Some members noted that the proposal would provide 25 new council rent homes; it was enquired whether these would be formula rent homes and whether they would be deliverable in the current economic climate. The applicant team commented that the economic climate was changeable but that the scheme had been designed based on council rent calculations and was conditioned on that basis.

·         Some members enquired whether there was any forward planning for residents whose health needs might deteriorate and where adaptations or lifts may be required later on. The applicant team acknowledged that the health needs of residents could change and that the Council was fairly well-placed to offer support. It was explained that, across the Housing Delivery Programme, approximately 13% of homes were fully accessible and adaptable and approximately 70% were accessible. It was added that the adult care hub would be working to provide good care. The applicant team acknowledged the comments made and stated that they would like to pass this on to the senior management team for the programme for any responses.

·         In relation to a query about the car free nature of the development, the Planning Officer explained that the proposal had been reviewed by transportation officers and it had been found that the car park on site had low usage levels. In addition, the surrounding streets did not have a high level of car ownership and it was considered that the loss of parking could be easily absorbed into the surrounding streets. The Transport Planning Team Manager added that the car free restriction would only apply to new residents and that a list of the relevant addresses would be kept on record.

·         In relation to the garden and landscaping scheme, the applicant team noted that there would be co-production with residents but that this would take place after the grant of planning permission. The applicant team explained that there had been a number of conversations with stakeholders, both online and in person, and that further efforts would be made to engage with those in the local area; it was understood that there were residents with strong views on how spaces in the area should be used and these views would be sought. It was added that there had been site visits with the local police and ward councillors and it was commented that the planting would be undertaken on areas that were currently quite bare.

·         Some members noted that the reason for refusal on the previous application for this site was a lack of affordable homes and it was enquired why the current proposal had fewer affordable homes. The Head of Development Management explained that the previous scheme had proposed 44 1-bed ‘pocket’ units, which were units smaller than the national space standards, and proposed to have 100% intermediate housing. In contrast, the current scheme proposed only nine 1-bed units, a mixture of larger units, and would include some low cost rented properties which had been identified as the greatest need in the Housing Strategy. It was highlighted that the application would not engage the previous reason for refusal.

·         The Committee asked about the road changes and the proposal to have roads shared between vehicles, pedestrians, and other users. The applicant team explained that there had been significant consideration of the central space. It was noted that service access was required but that there would be limited vehicular movement through the site, including a gated entrance, bollards, and other measures to ensure safety.

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum.

Cllr Rice moved to remove the requirement that the development be car free. The motion was not seconded.

Following a vote with 9 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a legal agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

3.    That the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 31^st December 2022 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

4.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

5.    Planning obligations are usually secured through a S106 legal agreement. In this instance the Council is the landowner of the site and is also the local planning authority and so cannot legally provide enforceable planning obligations to itself.

6.    Several obligations which would ordinarily be secured through a S106 legal agreement will instead be imposed as conditions on the planning permission for the proposed development.

7.    It is recognised that the Council cannot commence to enforce against itself in respect of breaches of planning conditions and so prior to issuing any planning permission measures will be agreed between the Council’s Housing service and the Planning service, including the resolution of non-compliances with planning conditions by the Chief Executive and the reporting of breaches to portfolio holders, to ensure compliance with any conditions imposed on the planning permission for the proposed development.

8.    The Council cannot impose conditions on a planning permission requiring the payment of monies and so the Director of Placemaking and Housing has confirmed in writing that the payment of contributions for the matters set out below will be made to the relevant departments before the proposed development is implemented.

9.    A summary of the planning obligations for the development is provided below:

1.    Carbon offset contribution

-       Carbon offset contribution if the zero-carbon policy requirement is not met, at £2,850 per tCO2, plus 10% management fee.

-       ‘Be Seen’ commitment to upload energy performance data

2.    Car-Capped Agreement including a £4,000 contribution to amend the Traffic Management Order

3.    Car Club Bay and Membership Subsidies

4.    Local Employment

5.    Employment and Skills Plan

6.    Skills Contribution

7.    Monitoring Costs

8.    Travel Plan

9.    Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution

10.Off-site highways and Landscaping working

11.Affordable Homes for Rent

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

10.The Council at the present time is unable to fully evidence its five-year supply of housing land. The ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF should be treated as a material consideration when determining this application, which for decision-taking means granting permission unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusal or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Nevertheless, decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan (relevant policies summarised in this report) unless material considerations indicate otherwise (of which the NPPF is a significant material consideration).