-
Agenda item
Site of Mount Pleasant Hospital, 7 Frederick Road, Hastings
(Mr R Temple, Principle Planning Officer)
Minutes:
Proposal:
Redevelopment of part of former hospital site to provide 40 dwellings, including 10 apartments, with associated works including adjustments to the existing access, provision of car parking spaces and landscaping.
Application No:
HS/FA/18/00001
Conservation Area:
Listed Building
Public Consultation
No
No
14 letters of objection received and 1 petition of objection
received.
Having raised his prejudicial interest, Councillor Roberts (Chair) was absent from the Chamber during discussion and voting of this item. The Vice Chair, Councillor Davies took the Chair for this item.
The Planning Services Manager, Mrs Evans presented this report for redevelopment of part of former hospital site to provide 40 dwellings, including 10 apartments, with associated works including adjustments to the existing access, provision of car parking spaces and landscaping at Site of Mount Pleasant Hospital, 7 Frederick Road, Hastings.
Members were informed of several updates to the report:-
Rights of Way consultation response
· No additional contribution required above that already sought.
· Amendments to recommendation to include additional policy references. 1. The proposed development would result in a poor layout that would appear cluttered, congested and fail to provide sufficiently sized parking spaces to the front of integral garages, a sufficient proportion of soft landscaping and a safe, unobstructed and direct cycle route. The proposed development would therefore be of poor design, represent overdevelopment, would not be fit for purpose or function in a suitable way, harmful to the character and appearance of the area and not creating a suitably designed place.
The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies HOV3, DM1 and HN7 of the Hastings Development Management Local Plan (2015), Policies T3 and FA5 of the Hastings Planning Strategy, the aims of the Hastings Walking and Cycling Strategy 2014, guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 17, 58 and 64, the National Planning Practice Guidance paragraphs 007 (Reference ID: 26-007-20140306), 024 (Reference ID: 26-024-20140306), 040 (Reference ID: 26-040-20140306), 002 (Reference ID: 26-002-20140306) and (026 Reference ID: 26-026-20140306), the Draft National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 126 and guidance contained within Building for Life 12.
· Applies to reasons for refusal 2 and 4 also
· Amended plans received at 5.30pm on 11th July
Amended Plans:
· Can an applicant amend an application after it has been submitted?
It is possible for an applicant to suggest changes to an application before the local planning authority has determined the proposal. It is equally possible after the consultation period for the local planning authority to ask the applicant if it would be possible to revise the application to overcome a possible objection. It is at the discretion of the local planning authority whether to accept such changes, to determine if the changes need to be reconsulted upon, or if the proposed changes are so significant as to materially alter the proposal such that a new application should be submitted.
· Paragraph: 061 Reference ID: 14-061-20140306
The Planning Services Manager explained this was a vacant and overgrown site, previously Mount Pleasant Hospital. It was an allocated site HOV3 for 40 dwellings net capacity. She explained that there were various constraints for the site including the cycle route, a badger sett and trees. Apre-application forum had been held in October 2017 for the public to hear how the applicant intended to develop the site.
Subsequently, amended plans were submitted as there were concerns regarding elevations and massing of the flats but were considered to make little improvement or overcome the concerns of officers. The Planning Services Manager referred to the concerns raised in her report, she said the cycle route should be unobstructed with no tight turns and should provide a safe route for cyclists. Although the amended plans show the reposition of the cycle route, she said it does not address some of these concerns. The various access points will cause interruption to the cycle route. Furthermore, the bulk, massing and height of development will create a cluttered environment, bland and unattractive in design. She said the development will be too close to a protected badger sett and refuse vehicles will be unable to turn without going on the curb. The development is not fit for purpose and for these reasons she said the amended plans were not accepted.
Members were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Ian Sear, petitioner, was present, he referred to the petition and Ore Valley Action Forum created in 2006. He said he was not opposed to development but it should be good quality design. He said that this was a bad design and cramped housing. The development, he said, would create a loss of greenspace and would double the number of dwellings allocated in the local plan. Splitting the site in half and building 40 dwellings on the site will maximise profit. He said it will create a cramped, dense development of poor design. The houses lack space and will be accessed by a steep, dangerous and congested road with poor visibility and no footpath. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Roger Nightingale, Kember Loudon Williams, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He said an amended scheme and revised drawings were submitted following a meeting with officers. He said that this was an allocated site and that the Council’s policy is for a minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare, this is not a maximum. If more units can be achieved in an acceptable form this should be the aim. With reference to the concerns raised, he said the layout is neither cluttered nor congested; the parking spaces have been addressed and landscaping has been softened in the amended drawings. Furthermore, the cycle route is more direct and will be free from obstruction and the roundabout has been removed. He said the design is the same as the Stills Factory site and if that was accepted this should be. The Legal Agreement will not be difficult to put in place and can be readily overcome. With regard to refuse vehicles turning onto the pavement, he said this is in one location and would apply for the largest of refuse vehicles in East Sussex. He asked the Committee to defer the application for further discussions to achieve an acceptable scheme.
The Planning Services Manager referred to Policy H1, she said the density must fit the site of at least 30 density per hectare. The site still has to offer an attractive, well thought out scheme. She said concerns were raised at the pre-application stage which still remain. Several meetings and a pre-application forum were held and telephone advice given. An opportunity to amend the plans was provided, but they do not address the concerns. The Fellows Road application was far superior in layout and does not have the same issues of design flaws, massing, landscaping, etc.
Councillor Chowney, Ward Councillor for Tressell, spoke against the application and supported the recommendation to refuse the application. The spine road he said was built along time ago and is not adopted and the road junction requires a better layout. He questioned who would be responsible for paying for the road and electricity for the street lighting if East Sussex County Council were not. He raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, stating it was overcrowded and cluttered. All the affordable housing would be in the flats and not integrated. If the number of dwellings are doubled he said it would need good quality design to enable bigger density. He said the cycle path has several steep assents and should be level. He urged the Planning Committee to refuse the application.
Members discussed their concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site referring to it’s poor design, lack of public safety, unknown responsibility for maintenance and being inappropriate for walkers and cyclists.
Councillor Beaver proposed a motion to refuse the application, subject to the amendment of Conditions 1, 2 and 4 as set out in the resolution below. This was seconded by Councillor Turner.
RESOLVED – (Unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed development would result in a poor layout that would appear cluttered, congested and fail to provide sufficiently sized parking spaces to the front of integral garages, a sufficient proportion of soft landscaping and a safe, unobstructed and direct cycle route. The proposed development would therefore be of poor design, represent overdevelopment, would not be fit for purpose or function in a suitable way, harmful to the character and appearance of the area and not creating a suitably designed place.
The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies HOV3, DM1 and HN7 of the Hastings Development Management Local Plan (2015), Policies T3 and FA5 of the Hastings Planning Strategy, the aims of the Hastings Walking and Cycling Strategy 2014, guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 17, 58 and 64, the National Planning Practice Guidance paragraphs 007 (Reference ID: 26-007-20140306), 024 (Reference ID: 26-024-20140306), 040 (Reference ID: 26-040-20140306), 002 (Reference ID: 26-002-20140306) and (026 Reference ID: 26-026-20140306), the Draft National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 126 and guidance contained within Building for Life 12.
The proposed development would result in buildings that comprise bland elevations and poor window form and design. In addition the massing of the proposed block of flats would by reason of its height, length, depth and proximity to the road would result in an overly dominant and imposing structure, which does not properly address the road at the corner, out of keeping with and harmful to the character of the area.
The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies DM1 and HOV3 of the Hastings Development Management Plan (2015), guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 17, 58 and 64 and the National Planning Practice Guidance, specifically paragraphs 025 (Reference ID: 26-025-20140306), 026 (Reference ID: 26-026-20140306), 027 (Reference ID: 26-027-20140306), 016 (Reference ID: 26-016-20140306), the Draft National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 126 and guidance contained within Building for Life 12.
The application will require the following infrastructure to be secured by means of a legal agreement in order to support the proposed development:
Contribution of £25,000 towards Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)
Pedestrian public realm improvements, including provision of a new pedestrian crossing at Farley Bank
Contribution Of £50,000 to off-site play facilities at Cookson Gardens and Farley Bank. The contribution will provide new and upgraded multi-play equipment (£25,000) at Cookson Gardens and upgrade fixed play equipment at Farley Bank (£25,000)
Libraries - £10, 520
Public Rights of Way - £960
The provision and maintenance of a cycle path
A travel plan
Affordable Housing - 10 units on site
No firm arrangements have been entered into to secure such an agreement. As such, the application is contrary to policies H3, CI1, CI3 and T4 of the Hastings Planning Strategy Local Plan (2014).
The application has not sufficiently demonstrated that a refuse vehicle can turn satisfactorily on site. As such the development would fail to achieve a layout that functions well and is considered to be contrary to policies DM3 of the Hastings Development Management Local Plan (2015), guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 17, 58 and 64, guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance paragraphs 007 (Reference ID: 26-007-20140306), 024 (Reference ID: 26-024-20140306), 040 (Reference ID: 26-040-20140306), 002 (Reference ID: 26-002-20140306) and (026 Reference ID: 26-026-20140306), the Draft National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 126 and guidance contained within Building for Life 12.
Notes to the Applicant
1.
Statement of positive engagement: In dealing with this application Hastings Borough Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2.
The applicant is advised that reason for refusal no 3 (for failure to make contribution) can be overcome by completion of agreement in compliance with policies H3, CI1, CI3 and T4 of the Hastings Planning Strategy Local Plan (2014).
3.
The applicant is advised that the use of a mini rounadabout would not be suitable given that the forsecast traffic flow would be below the recommended level for such. A priority junction is considered acceptable as an alternative and any scheme for the development of this site should have regard to this.
Supporting documents:
- MAP_HS_FA_18_00001_Site of Mount Pleasant Hospital, item 50. PDF 408 KB
- HS-FA-18-00001 - Site of Mount Pleasant Hospital 7 Frederick Road, item 50. PDF 211 KB
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.