Agenda item

Construction of 5 residential apartments with undercroft parking and associated landscaping (amended plans received 02/09/21 - design changes, further amendments 01/11/21)

High End, 22 Thorp Avenue, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1JR

Construction of 5 residential apartments with undercroft parking and associated landscaping (amended plans received 02/09/21 - design changes, further amendments 01/11/21)

High End, 22 Thorp Avenue, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1JR

R Soulsby provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation, advising that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting in order to allow a site visit to be undertaken.

A Welsh and C Routledge addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Their comments included the following information:

·       Mr Welsh lived at 21 Thorp Avenue with Ms Routledge living at 24 and they were speaking on behalf of 50 other local residents in objection to the application.

·       They would be happy to see development on the site but it should be appropriate and comply with planning guidance.

·       This application should be refused for being inappropriate, too high, too big and too intrusive and did not comply with planning guidance. It was not compatible with the locality which was comprised of single family homes.

·       The development contravened multiple policies such as Castle Morpeth Development Plan H15; Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan DES1; SUS1 and HOU9 and QOP1 of the Northumberland Neighbourhood Plan.  It did not achieve a sense of place by protecting or enhancing the character and distinctiveness of the settlement; it did not contribute to a sense of place which supported community identify and pride; and did not make a positive contribution to the local character.

·       The huge block of flats seriously violated the policies and its enormous size contravened the DES1 requirement that development must enhance the character of the site and its surroundings.

·       DES1 also forbid adverse impacts on occupants of neighbouring properties and QOP2 forbid unacceptable impact on users. The impact on existing residents would be immense.  The report stated that there would be no harm to the street scene or the wider area however over people in the community disagreed. The overbearing development would not only harm the privacy, but also the safety of residents due to increased traffic and on-street parking, along with increased noise levels.  The report did not sufficiently address concerns from objectors regarding separation distances, which were stated as being acceptable and had been compared to Greystoke site which it was felt was misleading due to the raised height and domineering height of the development.

·       Trees had been felled and the existing property demolished on the site and this was the third planning iteration with only minor tweaks being made which were insubstantial against the enormous overdevelopment. 

·       The proposed development was more than twice the footprint and twice the number of floors of the original dwelling, creating a top floor of 10m above the eaves of number 20 and 1m below the eaves of number 24, therefore overpowering and dominating neighbouring properties, overwhelming residents’ amenity.

·       The development would be overbearing and intrusive and contrary to the report would contravene both Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act which stated that a person had a right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions including their home and land and a substantive right to respect for their private family life.  Outdoor movements of residents, family and friends at number 20, which only had a front garden and the south aspect of number 24 would be permanently and completely on view.

·       Overlooking noise would be magnified by the close proximity of the balconies on the upper two floors.

·       The population density increase would multiply vehicle movements and adhoc street parking escalate the danger to all street users.

·       The application was contentious with objections from the community and Morpeth Town Council and Members were asked to use their discretion and do their duty to give consideration of each of the material considerations which had been raised by their constituents.

·       The development would be too big a mass; too dominant, intrusive and overlooking; severely impacts residential amenity; and did not comply with planning legislation.  The substantial material planning objections and adverse impacts were so great that the application should be refused.

Councillor A Byard addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Morpeth Town Council in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She was speaking as Chair of the Planning and Transport Committee for Morpeth Town Council (MTC).

·       A large number of residents of Morpeth had objected to these proposals and the Town Council wished to support their concerns. 

·       The changes in response to concerns regarding the height and overlooking along with the proposed widening of the road entrance splay had been noted, however MTC still objected to the development of 5 flats rather than the single detached dwelling as was there before.  It might be in the same use class but was a huge difference with up to 10 additional cars and visitors coming and going in Thorpe Avenue, a quiet residential cul-de-sac of residential homes first built in 1895.

·       The existing properties were varied however this proposed development was very big and not in keeping with the street scene and constituted over development. 

·       The high hill top location, which was recognised in the report, would be readily visible from neighbouring viewpoints and partially visible from areas further afield. 

·       The large size of the development would result in over-massing, have an adverse impact on the street scene and would dominate the surrounding area.

·       The development would contravene Policy SUS1.5 of the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) as it did not follow the good design which protected the character of the setting of the development and surrounding area; and policy DES1, paragraph B which stated that developments should make a positive contribution respecting or enhancing the character of the site and surrounding area in terms of proposal/ form/ massing/ density/ height/ size/ scale/ materials and detailed design features.

·       MTC were concerned regarding comparisons made by the Officer to the other large block of 5 luxury flats at the site of the former Greystoke surgery.  MTC would not like to see any precedent set for any large homes to be demolished to make way for blocks of flats which would be inappropriate in a market town.

·       There was no housing need for this type of development in Morpeth, which has undergone a rapid expansion in recent years.  NCC had recently acknowledged to MTC that they were well over the figure for required housing need and were already plenty of luxury flats in the town centre including retirement flats at William Turner Court and new flats at the old Registry Office which had not sold and the development at Cottingwood Lane.

·       Paragraph 130(A) of the NPPF expected developments to function well and add to the overall quality of the area over the lifetime of the development.  MTC support the views of residents that both during construction and occupation of the 5 flats on a difficult and sloping site on a blind bend would prove to be a significant reduction to their amenity and possible road safety.  MTC requested that the application be refused.

 D Nicholson, applicant addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Himself along with his wife were the owners of 22 Thorp Avenue and whilst currently living in a big house in the country were looking to relocate to Morpeth to a suitable property which would meet the needs of their advancing years. The property would need to be centrally located within walking distance of all the amenities and have no stairs.  They had looked at what was available in Morpeth but had not found anything which was suitable and therefore looked at development opportunities.

·       22 Thorp Avenue had been on the market for some time and had failed to sell. They had looked at the property and had been impressed with the size of the site, its location and magnificent views.

·       The property was on a large elevated site, one of the largest plots on Thorp Avenue, the front door of the house being 6m higher than Thorp Avenue itself which gave the property its superb views.

·       The design concept was to create a small up-market apartment scheme with a roof line no higher than the previous property which would be achieved by demolishing the existing house and garage and by the removal of the small hill located on the plot.  This would also allow for safe access to the site as well as providing generous car parking within the curtilage of the property and also provide some considerable development gain.

·       The pre-application process was used to see if the Planning Department agreed with their views and their response and recommendations used to submit a full planning application.

·       The full planning application generated a number of objections which in the main appeared to be the negative view of any apartment development on Thorp Avenue.  They had tried to reach a compromise with the objectors and, at the suggestion of the planning officer, had amended their drawings four times to try to help allay their concerns, which had significantly reduced the number of objections.

·       It was intended that they would live in one of the apartments, together with four other families who were in a similar position to themselves.

·       The apartments would be of a high quality and it was believed would be of significant architectural merit.  There was a huge demand for properties of this type due to the aging population and developments such as this were happening all over the Country, including Morpeth and he questioned why Thorp Avenue should be any different.  He advised that a different developer might take the view that the site was big enough for 10 or 12 McCarthy & Stone type apartments, for which there was a proven demand.

·       If Members agreed with the Officer recommendation they would be voting to help meet the recognised demand for this type of property and would also free up 5 large family homes for people who needed them in addition to generating more Council Tax revenue.

K Pimblott a Director at Acanthus Derbyshire Architects also addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The Company had worked with Mr Nicholson on a number of successful commercial developments within Morpeth town centre but this was a one with a personal view; a wish for her client to relocate to the town centre and reside in a high quality, modern, energy efficient apartment property with access to all facilities that town centre living offered.

·       The Planning Officer report was very thorough.

·       The plot was a very individual plot and was unlike any other plot on the street and hoped you were able to appreciate this at the site visit which had been undertaken.

·       Though the proposed scheme was larger in footprint that the previous house which occupied the site, the site was a large plot and due to its elevated position presented the opportunity to create direct level access into an underground parking allowing for three stories of accommodation critically within the ridge height of the previous house.

·       They had worked with the Planning Department through the planning process from  pre-application through to full planning and had taken on board comments received from consultees and local residents with the scheme modified.

In response to comments from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

·       The starting point for consideration of the development was SET1 of the (MNP).  This application was within the settlement boundary of Morpeth and directs development  in an already well developed densely populated location with good links to the town centre.  A different offering of residential use on the site was acceptable.  There was nothing in policy which separated whether it should be 1 residential unit or 5 residential units.  Members could consider whether the application met  design and visual character policies in terms of design, scale, form, massing, e.

·       The bulk of the objections had been received during the first consultation. Amended plans had been submitted and a further consultation had taken place, objectors did not have to submit further objections to the revised plans, however the initial objections still stand.

·       There were 10 undercroft parking spaces to be provided which provided 2 spaces per apartment.  Highways had confirmed that the number of visitor parking spaces was within acceptable parking standards of 1 visitor parking place for 4 dwellings which would equate to 1.2 parking spaces with the application including provision for 2 parking spaces.

·       Policy H15 of the CMDLP stated that there should be a minimum distance of 20m between primary facing elevations i.e. front and rear elevations.  Due to the orientation of the site and neighbouring dwellings there were no facing elevations and a separation distance of 8m would be retained from the outside terrace area to the south of 20 Thorp Avenue and 11.3m from the built form to the north.  There would be 12m separation distance between the apartment block and the southern gable of 24 Thorp Avenue and a minimum separation distance of 5m between the proposed building and the shared boundary.

·       The ridge height of the proposed apartment block now matched the height of the previous dwelling.

·       Northumbrian Water had been consulted and it was confirmed that foul and surface water drainage would be provided by the existing mains system and the applicant would be required to agree discharge rates with Northumbrian water prior to the commencement of the development, however this would be dealt with outside of the planning process.

Councillor Dodd proposed acceptance of the recommendation to grant permission as outlined in the Officer report, which was seconded by Councillor Jones.

Members expressed opinions that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and was not in keeping with the character of the area which was of red brick dwellings with sandstone lintels.   Concerns were also expressed regarding potential problems with car parking should residents choose not to park in the undercroft parking area, however it was recognised that the number of spaces accorded with policy and would not stand up as a reason for refusal.  The potential precedent being set for developers to out-bid purchasers for other family dwellings on large sites such as this in order to build apartments was also highlighted and examples of this happening in other parts of the County had been seen with appeals being lost when they had been refused by the Planning Authority. 

In response to a question on whether the applicant would work with the Planning Department on proposals for a reduction on the number of apartments to 4, Members were advised that would need to be a separate planning application.

The Development Service Manager advised that the large site was in a residential area and whilst the proposal was for a change from a large single residential unit into a small block of apartments  the residential use would continue.  Members were directed to consider if the proposal was in keeping with the character of the area which was predominantly large single residential dwellings.  It was made clear that Planning policies did not stipulate the type of residential properties to be provided and on such a large site as this then an applicant might have come forward with a request to provide more than 5 apartments.   Regarding other issues raised is was advised that Highways Development Management had confirmed that the level of car parking met the standards and policies and therefore this would not be a safe reason for a refusal.  The separation standards between the proposed apartment block and neighbouring properties were also acceptable and in accordance with policies and plans.  Members were advised that they could give further consideration to the impact on character, and design scale and massing , however they would need to give justification should they be minded to go against the recommendation.

A vote was taken on the proposal to accept the recommendation to grant permission as outlined in the report as follows:  FOR 3; AGAINST 2; ABSTENSIONS 4.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.