The Committee received and considered the report from the Senior Planning Officer.
This proposal was presented to Members because the site is owned by the Borough Council and the Council is also the applicant. The proposed affordable modular housing is being promoted by the Council but would be built by and operated in partnership with a local affordable housing Registered Provider, Broadland Housing Association.
The choice of the modular housing sites has been predicated by the need for rapid delivery of smaller homes to meet need, requiring the utilisation of land within the Borough Council’s existing estate. The plans have been revised during the application process following
discussions with Officers at the Borough, including Design and Conservation Officers, and a re-consultation has been conducted and concluded. A fact-finding site visit meeting of the DC Committee was held on 15th April 2021.
The proposal is on land currently forming a parking court associated with other blocks of flats in this area of Great Northern Close. The application site lies to the rear (east) of terraced houses at 115-116 North Denes Road, and north of the existing blocks of flats in Great Northern Close. To the north of this application site is open playing fields associated with the
Charter Academy, formerly the High School, is separated from the site by a chain-link mesh fence. Immediately adjacent to this site, to the east, is a recreation ground (Beaconsfield Recreation Road) also used for sports facilities in conjunction with the school and by other users. There is a gate in the brick wall between the recreation ground and the existing and proposed flats. The land intrudes into flood zone two, though the land levels all around this
site appear very close to level and land to the north and south is shown as being in zone one. It is situated within the town’s development boundary and with good access to shops, and other facilities. The site area is of 0.11 hectares (density 70 dwellings per hectare). The flats now occupying the land date to the late 1960s following closure of the railway. These flats are owned by the Borough Council.
Within the existing portion of the development known as Great Northern Close there are 60 flats. Within the whole of Great Northern Close, to provide for the 60 existing flats there are presently 71 spaces. There are 36 further flats to the south of those, forming Midland Close, which have their own parking provision. There are eleven houses fronting North Denes Road with rear gardens abutting Great Northern Close, where the road has enough length for
12 on street parking places. There are two parking areas in this vicinity serving the existing flats, one closer to the flats which appears well used, and the larger parking area that
serves as this application site immediately to the south of the playing field which appears less well used, but has capacity for up to 44 vehicles (60m x 17m approx).
Should this proposal be approved, the application site is still intended to serve as a car park for the surrounding area. The number of spaces as proposed for general use would be 27 spaces, in addition to providing 7 spaces open to all residents within the site of the 8 flats shown. This gives a total of 34 spaces for 68 flats across the Great Northern Close residential area. There are various other local parking sites in the vicinity as set out in section 6 of this
report. The land features some small ornamental trees planted as landscaping when
the housing was built. There is a row of trees on the recreation ground, to the east, close to the boundary wall. The character of the area is relatively open to the north and east with large
recreation spaces, with terraced development to the west fronting North Denes Road. To the west side of North Denes Road close to this site is the Estcourt Road application site for 30 dwellings (Application Reference 06/21/0618/F). These are two number x four-bedroom (7 person), three number x three-bedroom (five person), seven number x three-bedroom (six person), fourteen number x two-bedroom (four person) and four number one-bedroom flats. Fifty-six car parking spaces are provided giving each house two spaces and each flat one
space. This is in accordance with Norfolk County Council parking guidelines.
This is a full application for the erection of eight one-bedroom self-contained modular flats, in two buildings of two storeys. This comprises a group with four flats around a common stair in an L shape at the west of the site and a group of four flats in an H shape around a common stair. This creates a courtyard. Parking is shown for the flats created in a small parking area to the west side with capacity for seven vehicles and bin storage. Over the whole site
therefore this represents a loss of 37 parking spaces. Unit size is 50m square, compliant with the national standard for a one bedroom two-person home (also 50 sq m).
Accompanying the proposal are the following documents:
• Planning Application Forms and Certificates of Ownership;
• Application drawings as detailed on the Drawing Register;
• Design and Access Statement;
• Planning Statement (including Statement of Community Involvement);
• Preliminary Risk Assessment (Contamination);
• UXO Report;
• Topographical Survey;
• Ecology Report; and
• Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
• Sequential test for flood risk
The development is too small to require a Transport Statement.
There is no relevant planning history. Various applications for satellite dishes
on the existing flats dating to the mid-1990s.
Consultations:-
All consultation responses received are available online or at the Town Hall during opening hours. The ward councillor has objected, raising the following concerns: • Impact on parking for the current residents and properties nearby. County Highways have objected that there are insufficient spaces for new residents. When Beaconsfield Park is being used parking needs increase.
• The proposed housing development on Estcourt Road might not provide enough parking, adding to the local parking pressures.
• Site notice was removed and no replacement provided.
• Covid restrictions make engagement with residents difficult. More time is required notwithstanding the pre-application consultations made by the developer.
Neighbours and residents have objected, on the following summarised points:
• Notification has been poor as the site notice was removed the next day.
• The council have underestimated the displacement of parking facility at 22 vehicles. There are 60 flats in the estate.
• The surveys carried out during covid are not representative.
• The car park is used by residents, council contractors doing repairs and grounds maintenance, paramedics, home delivery drivers and sports teams using the Beaconsfield recreation ground.
• The emergency services struggle to negotiate the on-road parking in the Close.
• Registered disabled drivers struggle to find accessible parking spaces.
• Carers and people with children often cannot find space to park.
• Delivery drivers will find it difficult to park especially during covid.
• There are restrictions on the North Denes Road.
• There are no details for electric car charging points or consideration of what the end of petrol cars will mean.
• As the new tenants will have designated parking spaces there will be resentment from existing tenants will have no allocated provision.
• There are no disabled spaces and five are required on the whole site.
• By 7pm all spaces are occupied.
• The poor condition of the existing car park limits its use.
• The area is used for drug dealing and is poorly lit and the lights not maintained.
• The proposal creates a good place for drug dealing.
• This will lead with other schemes to overdevelopment of the area.
• The ward councillor further objects that asbestos has been found rendering development unsafe and restating previously expressed concerns regarding parking.
Norfolk County Council – Local Highways Authority – No objection. The amended plans show a technical shortfall of one space, however, in an email dated 18.3.21, the Highway officer agrees that if spaces are not hypothecated to this scheme then that is not objectionable, subject to a condition requiring that prior to the first occupation of the development the
proposed access, on-site car and cycle parking and turning area shall be laid
out in full, to ensure the availability of this space.
Historic Environment Service – No objection, nor recommendation for archaeological conditions.
Lead Local Flood Authority: No comments. This is a minor development below LLFA threshold for comment.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue. No objection and standard comments regarding provision for firefighting to accord with the Building Regulations.
Norfolk Police: CCTV is required to maximise surveillance at access points. The footpath is close to an area known for anti-social behaviour and should be gated with access for occupants only. Ideally the entire site will be fenced to 1.8m height. Access to the stairs should be by electronic key. Bin stores should be gated and key fob access to prevent arson. Good lighting combined with CCTV is recommended. Robust, secure lit cycle storage is required. ‘Private residents only’ signage needed. Access control to parking might be required. Note, a submission was received 6 May 2021 providing a revised ‘Secured by Design’ scheme and this has been sent to the police for further comment.
Environmental Health – (contaminated land, noise, air quality) No objections: A condition is required for contaminated land matters to be mitigated on site and validated before construction proceeds further, as the phase 1 and 2 studies showed some asbestos particles in one location. Construction work period should be restricted to protect adjacent residents and maintain air quality during construction works.
Building Control – Were critical of the originally submitted design showing open balcony access, but the revised scheme addresses the issue and allows firefighting hoses access within the prescribed 45m distance.
Anglian Water - Below threshold for comment.
The applicant has submitted a bespoke Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA).
As this site is at increased risk of flooding (zone 2) it is the duty of the Council to consider other sites when determining the application, in the form of a sequential test for flood risk. Officers have considered other available land in the Yarmouth urban area. The application has come forward due to the delivery support available from the Government’s funding of housing schemes that can be delivered quickly in response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. As such, there are timescale constraints relating to the development being achieved pursuant to this application, so it has been considered necessary to only consider alternative sites of lesser flood risk on land owned by the Council, because that is available and “deliverable” (in terms of the NPPF definition) in the timescales required to enable this development to proceed. In effect, the need to achieve rapid delivery defines the criteria for testing the availability of other land in lower flood risk, and largely rules other sites out unless in the
Council’s ownership.
Members will note that there are two alternative sites available for modular housing construction that fall within the Council’s ownership: one with planning permission resolved to be granted at the Beach Coach Station, Yarmouth, and one recommended for approval at Crab Lane, Gorleston, at this same meeting of the DC Committee. It cannot be said that this is the only site available for delivery of a scheme of 8 dwellings within the same timescale, but it can be said that the site is the only one which can provide this scale of development in addition to those two other schemes under consideration. As such, given the pressing importance of delivery of affordable housing in the Borough, it is considered that this is the most appropriate available and deliverable site for 8 homes from a flood risk sequential
assessment point of view.
Although the Council owns the land, there has been no consideration given to any possible financial implications linked to the development of the site. A small grant of ‘new homes bonus’ may arise, should this scheme qualify, but that is not considered a significant material factor in the weighting of this assessment.
The planning balance in this case is heavily weighted towards an approval recommendation for these vitally needed all-affordable form of housing directed at single persons and couples without children, where there is a substantial shortfall of such accommodation and of accommodation of this type that meets good standards of provision. The site offers a contribution to housing supply and is well located in relation to the pattern of the settlement. Against this there will be some impact on existing residents from the reduction
in parking provision, however there are alternative sites for parking in the locality, and while these may not always be practical solution for mothers with children, for example, occurrences where there is no space to drop off are considered sufficiently rare so as to be outweighed by the public benefits of the provision of affordable homes.
Other matters such as amenity impact are considered satisfactory and a lot of work has been conducted to remove the need for pre-commencement conditions to expedite the delivery of homes. By virtue of its modular construction and the relatively unconstrained nature of
the site, this scheme will very rapidly deliver a significant contribution to smaller housing accommodation where there is a significant shortfall in the overall housing stock, so is tailored to specific needs. Notwithstanding the applicant being the Borough Council, and the site being owned by the Borough Council, it is recommended that any permission be
subject to a legal agreement or other appropriate mechanism to require all homes to be used only for affordable housing. If this were not the case, Officer’s would need to reappraise the exercise of planning balance.
The application is recommended for approval subject to:
• completion of legal agreement or appropriate alternative mechanism to secure all 8 dwellings as affordable housing
• the payment for Habitat Regulations mitigation (£880) and subject to conditions for:
• Timing.
• Compliance with approved plans.
• Development to be in accordance with the contamination report.
• Securing parking and cycling spaces to be available before occupation.
• Passive EV provision and external lighting positions as shown on latest drawings, a pre-occupation condition to agree lighting intensity.
• Highway conditions.
• A security condition to reflect the recently received “secured by design” or alternative features, in discussion with the police as consultee.
• Provision of the agreed Ecology mitigation.
• Construction to be in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement.
• Contamination precautions during development.
• Hours of construction and noise control.
Councillor Bird asked whether it was intended to provide EVCP as part of the application. The Senior Planning Officer reported that cables would be laid for EVCP points to be sited in the future.
Councillor Hammond asked for clarification regarding the number of parking spaces to be provided. Councillor Williamson agreed that the proposed 34 parking spaces to serve 68 flats was insufficient and was the Council only proposing this number of spaces as the it was the applicant.
Mr Chris Stammer, applicant's agent, reported the salient areas of the application to the Committee and urged them to approve the much needed 1 bedroom accommodation in the Borough.
Councillor Waters-Bunn addressed the Committee as an objector on behalf of her mother and reported that the loss of parking would greatly affect the elderly who relied on multiple care visits a day and mothers with young children. Access to the rear of her mother's property was often blocked due to lack of parking nearby resulting in the missing of hospital appointments. She strongly urged the committee to refuse the application.
Councillor Martin, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee and reported the concerns of local residents to the proposal and the resulting loss of much needed parking in the area and she asked the committee to refuse the application.
Councillor Wainwright acknowledged that this type of housing was much needed in the borough but there were other, better sites for it and not just building it on infill sites and taking away much needed parking spaces for local residents who were already struggling to park.
Councillor Myers asked for clarification regarding paragraph 6.5 on page 39 of the agenda report.
Councillor Williamson reported that the proposal was suggesting half a parking space for 68 properties which was preposterous.
Councillor Hammond suggested there were other much better suited brownfield sites nearby on Estcourt road and Beach Coach Station and in all good consciousness, he could not support this application.
Councillor Wainwright proposed that the application be refused as it was over-development and would result in loss of amenity and car parking for local residents. This was seconded by Councillor Myers.
RESOLVED:-
That application 06-20-0568-F be refused as it was over-development and would result in loss of amenity and parking for local residents.