Agenda item

Construction of 44no. homes (Use Class C3) and 20no. apartments (Use Class C2)  including associated  access,  landscaping  and infrastructure (amended description)

Former Bellingham Auction Mart, Bellingham, Northumberland

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and reported the following updates:

 

·        A further objection had been received from a resident at Westfield House, which raised concerns in relation to:

-       the proposed Class C2 apartment use on the site;

-       the effect on the character of Bellingham;

-       not enough local people in need of the number of properties proposed;

-       effect on local infrastructure.

·        Environmental Protection had initially raised an objection due to insufficient information relating to air source heat pumps (ASHPs).  The applicant had since advised that the intention is for ASHPs to only be used on the C3 dwellings, not the apartments, and this would adopt photovoltaic panels with electric panel heaters within the properties.  Environmental Protection had subsequently advised that details of ASHPs for the dwellings could be conditioned.

·        On the basis of the current layout, and not accepting the Council’s position on viability, the applicant had confirmed they would accept the £33,000 financial contribution to progress the application.  Whilst this would address the main purpose for recommending refusal reason 4, it should still be included as the Section 106 agreement had not been completed.  Reason 4 should also be amended to include reference to affordable housing as one of the obligations that would need to be secured through a S106 agreement.

·        Confirmed that the applicants, following discussion with the LPA, had submitted a late amendment to:

(1) remove one of the residential units, and

(2) allow an increased level of amenity space around the residential block.

 

The Interim Executive Director of Planning & Local Services, Regeneration, Commercial & Economy commented that the application provided an unusual opportunity to provide a significant number of affordable housing units which benefitted from external funding in a rural location.  He also confirmed that the site had remained “fallow” for many years because of site technical issues and consequent viability problems.  The scheme proposed therefore represented a viable route to overcome significant problems associated with the site.  He also confirmed that the site was allocated for residential development within the Northumberland Local Plan and that the principle of affordable/specialist housing in the location was fully supported.  He noted however, that whilst there had been extensive negotiations with the applicant, the application as presented did not fully meet design standards that the Local Plan sought to achieve. He therefore asked Members to determine whether the benefits of the application outweighed the harm, both of which had been outlined.

 

Mr Cresswell, a director of Maple Oak Living, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the following: -

 

·        The site had a number of complex issues which was why it had remained undeveloped for 18 years.  The project provided a unique opportunity to deliver a scheme which would bring substantial benefits to the local community.

·        They had engaged with a wide variety of local stakeholders to establish the best purpose for the site.

·        Discussions had also been held with various departments in the Council including adult services and in response to the 2019 Housing Needs Assessment it was evident that there was an under supply of affordable homes in the area and an under supply of housing for older people and adults who needed supported living.  There were concerns that vulnerable adults living with elderly parents would need to move away from their support network.

·        Frail elderly residents living in remote areas of the parish placed a strain on the local GP practice which would be eased if they could be accommodated within the scheme and closer to the main service hub of Bellingham.

·        The housing needs assessment provided evidence that young families needed affordable housing choice in the area.

·        They were committed to establishing a local lettings policy for the site in response to concerns expressed that the scheme could favour people from outside the area.

·        Approval would help support school numbers for Bellingham Primary School and Bellingham Middle Schools which could be at risk of closure due to falling rolls.  The primary school was currently operating at 63% capacity.  One of the reasons for falling rolls being no suitable affordable housing for young families within the parish and having no option but to leave the village.

·        The engagement had pointed towards the need for an affordable housing scheme that would accommodate young families, provide older person bungalows and housing that vulnerable adults and older people could safely live in.

·        Due to the challenges of the site, the economics were finely balanced and unviable without additional funding. They had successfully secured funding from Homes England and Brown Field Grant Funding from North of Tyne Combined Authority.  The money needed to be committed otherwise it was at risk of being reallocated.  Approval of the planning application was required whilst refusal would put the funding in jeopardy.

·        The scheme and infrastructure were sustainable and included provision of electric car charging points for all dwellings, photovoltaics on roofs and low carbon air source heat pumps.

·        They had listened to the council’s concerns on design and had amended plans and layouts and added some stone facades, within the constraints of viability.

·        A further late amendment proposed the removal of one house to provide additional amenity space around the apartment block.  If the Council was minded to accept this, they would commit to the changes and make them work within the brown field grant parameters.  Any further loss of units would result in the site becoming unviable for development.

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided, both by Planning Officers and the NCC Affordable Housing Officer: -

 

·        The NTCA Brownfield Housing Fund approved funding on a scheme-by-scheme basis and would be contingent on planning permission being obtained.

·        The role of planning was to secure the best possible design.  The viability issues of the site were acknowledged.  Positive discussions had been held between the developer and officers from the pre-application stage until the present day with changes and amendments having been agreed progressively.

·        Initial proposals for planning use Class C3 dwellings for the apartment block units had been amended to Class C2 use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care following discussions with Adult Social Care and a review of the Housing Needs Assessments in 2019 and Homefinder data.  Care staff would not be on site all of the time but there would be support via an alert system and daily visits for those residents who required assistance.

·        Whilst it may be not likely be possible to fill all of the units with local residents when lettings commenced, the proportion of local people would likely increase with subsequent lettings as units became vacant over time.

·        Residents in rural areas were less likely to engage with the Homefinder system.  However, the Housing Needs Assessment in 2019 had identified a need for affordable housing in Bellingham.  Comparison was made with a similar large affordable housing scheme in Belford, although it had initially commenced with 10 units and had increased over several phases. In this light, the Committee was advised that while Homefinder data reported on expressed demand, it did not capture latent demand in the area fully.

·        A mix of housing tenure was proposed including affordable rented, supported living, older persons shared ownership and rent to buy.  The approach was considered to be suitable for the site.

·        Two phases of development were set out in paragraph 2.7 of the report.  The Section 106 agreement would also allow for a change in tenure types if there were a change in the market or difficulty in finding occupants for a particular type.

·        There was a risk if the application were refused that the external funding would be reallocated to another scheme as there were challenging delivery targets to be met.

·        Amendments to the scheme had been made in relation to density, amenity space and number of parking spaces to reconcile issues of design with the site-based problems.  The applicant stated that the loss of any further units would make the scheme unviable.

·        Local policies in the Northumberland Local Plan reflected national guidance and the same difficulties had existed during earlier discussions before the plan was adopted.  Members could arrive at a different conclusion when weighing the harm from the layout, scale and design of the development against the benefits of developing a challenging brownfield site with use of external funds and provision of significant affordable housing.

·        The requirements for parking provision were lower for Class C2 use than Class C3 use.  However, there was insufficient provision for the apartment block which should have 20 spaces and 5 visitor parking spaces as per local policy and the Manual for Streets and impacted on amenity and the long-term quality of the place.  (Only 12 spaces had been provided within the courtyard and 6 on grasscrete.)

·        The site was allocated for residential development within the Policy HOU 4 of the Northumberland Local Plan and it was therefore expected and had been considered at the Local Plan EIP that development of the site would bring changes to the area and adjacent properties, and that this was acceptable in principle.  Issues with flooding had meant that ground levels had needed to be raised at the southern end of the site.  House types had been swapped on the eastern boundary to ensure that impacts on existing residents were reduced and new bungalows had been located next to existing bungalows.

·        The concerns regarding limited amenity related to future occupants of the development and residents of Maltings Close, particularly in relation to the areas around the apartment block.  The block was stepped with the largest block located in the middle and nearest to garages and two-storey dwellings outside the site.

·        If the Committee were minded to approve the application with the recently proposed design changes, the agreement of the Chair would be obtained regarding the wording of conditions including a more stringent lettings policy and Section 106 agreement for the financial contribution for affordable housing, open space and healthcare provision.

·        Standards regarding open space were set out within the NLP and did not require that play provision be included on site as there were less than 50 Class C3 dwelling units.  The policy required that a financial contribution be made via a Section 106 agreement.

·        The viability of the site had been evidenced by the developer who had needed to source additional external funding and also demonstrated by the length of time the site had been undeveloped.  The site would not be viable if more units were lost to provide open space.

·        Rural exception sites were those located outside a settlement boundary and therefore not relevant to this site which was within Bellingham.

·        The sustainability of the location had been assessed as part of the NLP examination and approval process.

·        It would not be possible to seek additional developer contributions due to the issues regarding the viability of the site.  Improvements to connectivity could be achieved through the LCWIP process.

·        The Interim Executive Director confirmed that, after hearing all the comments of Committee, that he held the view that the officer recommendation was appropriate and justified, but the matters discussed by members were capable of being material considerations in a decision to approve.

 

Councillor Dale proposed acceptance of the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons in the officer’s report and inclusion of affordable housing within reason no. 4.  This was seconded by Councillor Waddle.

 

Some of the Members had found the site visit beneficial as it had demonstrated that the site would be suitable for residential development.  They expressed their support for the application which would provide a significant amount of affordable housing, a Council priority, particularly in rural areas such as Bellingham.  There was concern that the external funding might be lost if approval of the planning application was delayed.

 

Others highlighted that the apartment block was not a feature replicated elsewhere in the village and were not convinced that the benefits outweighed the harm from the design of the scheme, the impact on open space and amenity to the character of the site and surrounding area, particularly Maltings Close.

 

Members were in agreement that a stringent lettings policy needed to be adopted, and issues seen at other locations were not replicated. Reference was made to the difficulties parking in Bellingham and frequency and connectivity of public transport.

 

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -?

 

FOR: 5; AGAINST: 6; ABSTENTION: 1.

 

The motion failed.

 

Councilor Oliver proposed that the application be granted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused as the benefits of delivering the affordable housing outweighed the harm from the development.  If approved, the wording of conditions would need to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair.  This was seconded by Councillor Riddle.

 

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -

 

FOR: 5; AGAINST: 5; ABSTENTION: 2.

 

As this was a tied decision, the Chair exercised his casting vote in favour of the proposal to approve the application and the motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons stated and that the wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair, including:

 

a)      Incorporating the latest amendments to the design and removal of one C3 unit

b)      A condition for a Section 106 agreement for the £33,000 financial contribution to secure affordable housing, open space and healthcare provision.

c)      Details of the phasing, mix of affordable housing tenures, eligibility criteria for local lettings policy to be submitted and agreed in consultation with the local member and parish council.