Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the demolition of the existing 22 bedroom residential dwelling, the associated 3 bedroom retirement dwelling and garages/outbuildings, and replacement with a new three storey 72 bedroom care home, and one three storey block containing 25 retirement living apartments, together with the provision of 51 car parking spaces and landscaping.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the demolition of the existing 22-bedroom residential dwelling, the associated three-bedroom retirement dwelling and garages/outbuildings, to be replaced with a new three-storey 72-bedroom care home, and one three-storey block containing 25 retirement living apartments, together with the provision of 51 car parking spaces and landscaping at Woodview in Lambourne Road, Chigwell. This application had been considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee South at its meeting held on 1 March 2017, and directly referred to this Committee for decision to allow for the submission and assessment of a Heritage Impact Assessment.

 

The Assistant Director stated that the current building was a large two and three storey Victorian mansion style residential house located within extensive grounds in Lambourne Road, and was opposite the residential cul-de-sac of Shillibeer Walk. The house was heavily screened from view from Manor Road by mature trees, and other mature trees – some of which were protected – were within the grounds and near the boundaries of the site. The building was not listed, nor did it lie within a conservation area.

 

The Assistant Director reported that following the meeting on 1 March 2017, a Heritage Statement had been submitted on behalf of the Applicant examining the history and significance of the existing building. This had been examined by the Council’s Senior Conservation Officer who, following a site visit, had concluded that Woodview was of local heritage interest and its loss would be regrettable; however, it was recognised that some of the authenticity and character of the building had been lost through later interventions. In addition, it made little contribution to the local street scene. At the very least, a full photographic and building recording survey should be carried out to preserve a record of the building should its loss be judged to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. It was also explained that an extra condition had been added by Officers since the agenda had been published, stipulating that the 25 Retirement Apartments were to be occupied by residents over the age of 60.

 

The Assistant Director informed the Committee that Planning Officers had concluded the benefit of this proposal was the provision of modern and purpose built accommodation for elderly people on a site which constituted previously developed land. The demand for this type of accommodation was high and its provision would also assist in freeing up existing family homes in the local area for occupation by younger and larger households. The application would also generate a significant commuted sum to assist in the provision of affordable housing in the locality. Consequently, Planning Officers were of the view that these benefits outweighed the heritage merits of retaining the building, which was not considered to be listable but a possible non-designated heritage asset, and it was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this application. There had been seven letters of objection received; six from local residents and one from Ability Housing Association who owned four bungalows for disabled people in Lakeside Close. One hundred identical letters of support had been received from a wide area including Chigwell, Loughton, Woodford and beyond. Chigwell Parish Council had no objections to the amended scheme, along with Essex County Council Highways, Archaeological Section, Sustainable Drainage Team and Epping Forest District Council Trees and Landscape Section and Land Drainage Team. The Essex County Council Infrastructure Officer had identified a need for a developer contribution of £55,720 for early years and child care provision within the Chigwell Row ward, and the Director of Communities would also seek a financial contribution in the sum of £443,885 from the developer for the off site provision of affordable housing. Both of these financial contributions were covered by the proposed Section 106 Legal Agreement.

 

The Committee also noted that two late representations had been received following the publication of the agenda. The first was from the Victorian Society, who objected to the demolition of the existing building, which they felt was a non-designated heritage asset as defined in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework; the second was a rebuttal to the representation made by the Victorian Society from the Applicant. The Committee heard from the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

 

Cllr Kauffman pointed out that the application had actually been refused by Area Planning Sub-Committee South on 1 March 2017, and it was before this Committee by way of a minority reference. Cllr Kauffman highlighted that the proposed building would be 5 times larger than the building which was currently on site, and there would also be hardstanding areas and car parking. Paragraphs 87 – 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework was quoted to the Committee, which dealt with development in the Green Belt, and it was emphasised that no independent evidence had been provided to show the special circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from this development, and any buildings in the Green Belt should be replaced by ones that were not materially larger and in the same use as before. Cllr Kauffman also felt that this application had been submitted too soon and the Council should wait for the Local Plan to be finalised before allowing such applications with the metropolitan Green Belt.

 

The Assistant Director conceded that this was an uncertain area and was not clear cut, but it could be argued that the site had already been developed and therefore was considered a ‘brownfield’ site. Officers believed that special circumstances did exist in this case and approval of this application would not create a precedent as the site was next to the existing settlement of Chigwell.

 

Cllr Whitehouse enquired as to the purpose of a non-designated heritage asset as it seemed to be easily outweighed in planning terms, and what current examples were there throughout the District. In relation to the site’s location within the Green Belt, Cllr Whitehouse expressed some concern about the argument that as the site was directly adjacent to an existing settlement then there was less harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It was highlighted that most of the settlements within the District had Green Belt directly adjacent to their boundary, so where would this argument end. It was also emphasised that this particular area separated London from the first village outside the metropolitan area, and it could be argued that this area of Green Belt land was therefore particularly important. Cllr Whitehouse could see the need for such accommodation as special circumstances but not necessarily the location, and the need for such accommodation could be addressed through the Local Plan process.

 

The Assistant Director responded that the Local Plan would not necessarily address the need for this type of accommodation, just general housing need rather specific housing need. The Gunpowder Mills at Waltham Abbey was an example of a non-designated heritage asset within the District, where planning permission was recently refused and the site was now the subject of a public inquiry. Planning Officers had felt that the location of this application was unique, given the screening of the site, and granting permission for this application would not set a precedent for the future.

 

Cllr Knapman felt that the Committee needed to consider the future as the building would become derelict if it was not found a use. There was a proven need for care homes, both locally and nationally, and given this need the site should be used for that purpose. Cllr Knapman also commented that he lived in the immediate vicinity of the site but had never noticed the existing building until the site visit as the site was so well screened. The Chairman added that there was a landscape scheme to screen the new building, which would follow the outline of the existing building. Cllr Brady felt that the current house was a ‘white elephant’ and this was a good proposal for the land. The site was on the edge of the metropolitan Green Belt, close to public transport links, and the Parish Council had not objected to the application so the Councillor would support the application.

 

Cllr Chambers commented that it would be a shame to see this building be demolished and he would have preferred it if the existing façade could have been kept in situ. The Councillor felt that there were some care homes in the District with empty beds and would not support the application. Cllr Pond felt that it would be an act of vandalism to demolish the existing building as it was a full scale Victorian Country House with 35 rooms, and was one of the largest in the Epping Forest District. The Councillor agreed with the comments made by Cllr Kauffman, the application involved a material heritage consideration and should be refused permission. Cllr Heap stated that the existing building was structurally sound and should remain; and this was not a good use of the land.

 

The Assistant Director highlighted that a number of care homes within the District had been rebuilt to modern standards over the last 18 years, and the building under consideration was neither listed nor in a conservation area. There would need to be a discussion with the Director of Communities to determine if the proposed Section 106 monies could be used to provide affordable residential care for the elderly.

 

Cllr Knapman highlighted that there was no practicable means of saving the current building as it was not listed. There were already 37 listed buildings in Chigwell, and there was a significant need for a proper care home in Chigwell. Cllr Jones stated that she could not see any future for the current building and affordable residential care was badly needed in the District for residents, so on balance, she would support the application. Cllr Sunger, whilst not a member of the Committee, reminded the Committee that there had been no objection from the Parish Council and requested the Members grant the application to help meet the local need for residential care. Cllr Stallan pointed out that if the application was approved then the beds would be available to anyone resident in the United Kingdom and could not be reserved for residents of Chigwell or the Epping Forest District.

 

Cllr Kauffman reiterated his concerns, namely that the application site was within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the grounds should be considered as garden and not covered in tarmac for hardstanding and parking, the proposed new building would be five times larger than the existing building, there was no affordable housing being provided on site, and there would be units for sale on the open market which should be reserved for people over the age of 60 only. The Councillor felt that the Committee should refuse this application and await the new Local Plan before deciding where accommodation of this type should be built within the District.

 

The Chairman suggested an extra condition that any antiquities on site should be moved to the District Museum at Waltham Abbey for safekeeping. The vote to grant planning permission for the application was narrowly lost. There was then a proposal to refuse planning permission from Cllr Pond, seconded by Cllr Kauffman, on the grounds that the application would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and cause irreversible harm though the demolition of a non-designated heritage asset. However, this vote was tied and the Chairman used his second and casting vote against the proposal to refuse planning permission. The Senior Democratic Services Officer then advised the Committee that the best course of action in the circumstances would be to directly refer the application to the Council for a decision; a motion was proposed and seconded to this effect and the planning application was referred to the Council for a decision at its next scheduled meeting on 25 April 2017.

 

Decision:

 

(1)        That a report be submitted to the Council recommending planning application EPF/2550/16 for Woodview at Lambourne Road, Chigwell be granted planning permission subject to the Applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as outlined below and the planning conditions listed below;

 

(2)        That a satisfactory financial contribution be included in the proposed Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of:

 

            (a)        £443,885 for off-site Affordable Housing provision; and

 

            (b)        £55,720 for provision of local early years childcare places; and

 

(3)        That the recommended planning conditions be as follows:

 

1.         The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.

 

2.         No construction works above ground level shall take place until documentary and photographic details of the types and colours of the external finishes have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such approved details.

 

3.         No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

·                 The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

·                 Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

·                  Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

·                  The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

·                  Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, including wheel washing; and

·                  A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

 

4.         No development, including works of demolition or site clearance, shall take place until a Tree Protection Plan Arboricultural Method Statement and site monitoring schedule in accordance with BS:5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations) has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved documents unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

 

5.         All material excavated from the below ground works hereby approved shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

6.         If any tree, shrub or hedge shown to be retained in Sharon Hosegood Associates ‘Supplementary Arboricultural Report’ dated 23 December 2016 (Ref : SHA 270 Rev A) is removed, uprooted or destroyed, or dies, or becomes severely damaged or diseased during development or within 3 years of the completion of the development, then another tree, shrub or hedge of the same size and species shall be planted within 3 months at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. If within a period of five years from the date of planting any replacement tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed, or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective then another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall, within 3 months, be planted at the same place.

 

7.         Soft landscaping shall be implemented as shown on Tim Moya Associates, ‘Tree and Hedgerow planting plan’, Drawing number 160836-L-01 rev b, dated December 2016; and Tim Moya Associates, ‘soft landscaping - shrub, herbaceous, grass and bulb planting plan’, drawing number 160836-L-02 Rev a, dated December 2016; unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written approval to any alterations

 

8.         No works shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to occupation and should include but not be limited to:

 

(i)         Limiting discharge rates to 2l/s for all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 year rate plus 40% allowance for climate change.

 

(ii)        Provide sufficient storage to ensure no off site flooding as a result of the development during all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus 40% climate change event.

 

(iii)        Sufficient storage should be provided to ensure that in the event of pump failure no flooding will occur during a 1 in 30 year event.

 

(iv)       Provide sufficient treatment for all elements of the development. Treatment should be demonstrated to be in line with the guidance within the CIRIA SuDS Manual C753.

 

9.         No works shall take place until a scheme to minimise the risk of offsite flooding caused by surface water run-off and groundwater during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

10.       No works shall take place until a Maintenance Plan detailing the maintenance arrangements including who is responsible for different elements of the surface water drainage system and the maintenance activities/frequencies, has been submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Should any part be maintainable by a Maintenance Company, details of long term funding arrangements should be provided.

 

11.       The applicant or any successor in title must maintain yearly logs of maintenance which should be carried out in accordance with any approved Maintenance Plan. These must be available for inspection upon a request by the Local Planning Authority.

 

12.       An internal/external bat survey of the main house and trees (if affected) shall be undertaken to include emergence re-entry surveys for bats if necessary. These surveys should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Should the surveys reveal presence of bats, then a detailed mitigation strategy must be written in accordance with any guidelines available from Natural England (or other relevant body) and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. In some cases a European Protected Species Licence may be required from Natural England. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

 

13.       The ponds within 250m of the application site be subjected to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Should the HSI survey reveal the suitability of the ponds for Great Crested Newts then a full survey needs to be carried out. These surveys should also be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. If these surveys reveal the presence of Great Crested Newts then a detailed mitigation strategy must be written in accordance with any guidelines available from Natural England (or other relevant body) and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. In some cases a European Protected Species Licence may be required from Natural England. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

 

14.       A method statement be written and submitted for pre- and during the construction for issues concerning hedgehogs, birds, reptiles, invertebrates and invasive species (details in the Phase 1 habitat survey by CGO Ecology Ltd submitted May 2016).

 

15.       The development be carried out in accordance with the flood risk assessment (RPS - Flood Risk Assessment including SuDS Strategy, Ref HLEF47138/001R, October 2016) and drainage strategy submitted with the application unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

16.       No conversion/demolition or preliminary groundworks of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

17.       Prior to the first occupation of the development the vehicle parking and turning areas as indicated on the approved plans shall be provided, hard surfaced, sealed and marked out. The parking and turning areas shall be retained in perpetuity for their intended purpose.

 

18.       There shall be no discharge of surface water onto the Highway.

 

19.       The proposed use of this site has been identified as being particularly vulnerable if land contamination is present, despite no specific former potentially contaminating uses having been identified for this site. Should any discoloured or odorous soils be encountered during development works or should any hazardous materials or significant quantities of non-soil forming materials be found, then all development works should be stopped, the Local Planning Authority contacted and a scheme to investigate the risks and / or the adoption of any required remedial measures be submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of development works. Following the completion of development works and prior to the first occupation of the site, sufficient information must be submitted to demonstrate that any required remedial measures were satisfactorily implemented or confirmation provided that no unexpected contamination was encountered.

 

20.       The development hereby permitted will be completed strictly in accordance with the approved drawings numbered H.16.01 (9-) 5; (9-) 4 Rev B; (9-) 2 Rev F; (21) 6; (21) 5; (00) 13; (00) 7; (00) 15; (00) 14; (00) 5; (00) 6; (00) 4; (00) 12; (21) 2; 21(10.)

 

21.       Prior to the undertaking of any demolition or preliminary groundworks, details of a programme of historic building recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall approve in accordance with the agreed details.

 

22.       The 25 elderly retirement living apartments hereby approved shall only be occupied by residents who are 60 or more years old, except where the partner of a resident is 55 or more years old.