Agenda item

Reserved Matters Application relating to 16/00078/OUT - Development of Phase 1 of proposals which include Trunk Road Service Area, Hotel and Innovation Centre plus associated access, parking, landscaping, and other associated infrastructure

Land West of Lancaster Park, Pinewood Drive, Lancaster Park, Morpeth

Northumberland

Reserved Matters Application relating to 16/00078/OUT - Development of Phase 1 of proposals which include Trunk Road Service Area, Hotel and Innovation Centre plus associated access, parking, landscaping, and other associated infrastructure

Land West of Lancaster Park, Pinewood Drive, Lancaster Park, Morpeth

Northumberland

D Love, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation. An addendum report had also been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting and had been uploaded on the Council’s website.  He advised that this was the first of two applications in relation to the reserved matters from outline permission reference 16/00078/OUT. Updates were provided as follows:-

·       A response had now been received from Public Protection on the submitted Air Quality Assessment (AQA) and requested an additional condition for a construction environment management plan (CEMP).  It is proposed to add the standard CEMP condition with the addition of the AQA mitigation requirements as set out by Public Protection. 

·       Subject to the above amendment, the recommendation should be changed to approval subject to conditions as outlined in the addendum report and additional conditional regarding the CEMP.

·       It was clarified that there was to be a restaurant / bar area open to hotel guests and the public, the location of which was shown on the presentation.

·       Since the outline application was permitted, the exact boundaries of the Green Belt around Morpeth had been confirmed through the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan. Following the adoption of the plan, application 18/03394/REM (for service area/innovation centre) was confirmed not to be located in the Green Belt. Most of the housing on application 19/01362/REM was also confirmed to be outwith the Green Belt. However, 25 dwellings were confirmed to be located in the Green Belt, as was much of the country park. 

·       When the outline application was approved, the housing element located in the Green Belt was considered in the context of Green Belt policy. While, in accordance with national policy, it was considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however officers and members accepted that harm to the Green Belt and other harm, was clearly outweighed by other considerations, and that therefore the development should be supported as Very Special Circumstances existed.

·       The amount and location of the housing in the Green Belt in 19/01362/REM, and the number of jobs supported by 18/03394/REM were broadly aligned with those presented in the outline application. Therefore, given that the applications were largely the realisation of the original outline approval, there was no need to revisit Green Belt considerations including VSC as part of the assessment of these reserved matters applications and therefore members were asked to disregard paragraphs 7.9 to 7.17 of the officer report relating to 19/01362/REM and paragraphs 7.14 to 7.22 of the officer report relating to 18/03394/REM.

·       Members were advised that the original approval was gained on the basis that the commercial aspect could only be achieved off the back of the housing development and a number of differences in the original approval and the reserved matters were outlined for Members.

·       The phasing of the development would also need to be updated should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

P Burchall addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       He represented a group of Lancaster Park residents who opposed development on the safeguarded land.

·       The outline planning consent was for a comprehensive development embracing both commercial and residential elements and great emphasis was made that without a proportion of housing being delivered on part of the site it would not be financially viable to deliver the employment and commercial uses in isolation. Yet today the Committee was being asked to consider applications from two different organisations and he questioned how the commercial element be dependent on the residential element. 

·       A confidential development viability appraisal was provided for the original outline application however this was now in the public domain and clearly did not support the claim that around 286 jobs would be created.

·       This Committee gave outline planning approval six years ago on the grounds that the economic benefits set aside the requirements of the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) with the current Chair of the Committee proposing acceptance solely because of the job creation. It was essential that these commitments were met in full and as this application did not meet those commitments he urged the Committee to reject it.

·       Details of reserved matters applications must be in line with the outline approval and these proposals were not. The proposed site arrangement was completely different from that agreed and was alluded to in the officer’s presentation. A 60 bedroom hotel with separate restaurant and pub was agreed, this has been reduced to a 40 bedroom hotel with an inclusive small area for restaurant and pub in a completely different location.  A single fuel station had been agreed this had been replaced by two fuel outlets, one for HGVs and a one for other vehicles which would require two volatile liquid and gas storage facilities in a different location.  An amenity building to include retail, hot food and supporting facilities had previously been agreed, this had now been replaced by a huge amenity centre in a different location and housing a number of fast food takeaway business creating additional litter than the facility initially approved.  The building would be large and be intrusive in the countryside setting, was contrary to the MNP vision statement of green and open aspects to all approaches to the town.

·       Car parking had been increased by 30%.

·       An innovation centre, which swayed the decision in November 2016 was agreed which would provide 149 high grade research and development jobs, this had been replaced by 7 individual industrial units in a different location and with the floor area reduced.

·       He advised the Committee 6 years ago that the jobs would not materialise and he had been proved correct.  Members must reject the proposals and demand that the application creates the promised jobs and economic benefit otherwise the MNP was valueless.

A Byard, representing Morpeth Town Council (MTC) addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The original Outline application was consented against the newly made Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (MNP)

·       The Officer's report placed a very significant weight on the economic benefits of the proposal which justified a departure from local planning policies, including policies contained within the MNP.  Since the housing element depended on the employment element, including the Innovation Centre, hotel etc, it was believed the two applications should never have been separated.

·       It was understood that Outline planning permission had unfortunately been granted but it was requested that Councillors rejected this Reserved Matters application, given that the general employment offer was now greatly reduced and that the 7 office units could not possibly be referred to as an Innovation Centre. An Innovation centre was an incubator for the creation and sharing of new ideas, usually attached to a university or business, which enabled the sharing of knowledge between researchers and business experts, industry, government, and academia. A good local example of which was the National Innovation Centre for Data, based in the Helix science district in Newcastle, whose mission was to transfer data skills from their scientists to the UK workforce.  This was the sort of Innovation Centre that was expected, providing additional and high-quality employment for Morpeth.

·       If councillors were minded to approve this application, it was wished to ensure that those elements of alleged benefit to the community were delivered as promised. MTC therefore strongly objected to any phasing plan which did not put the employment element first, including an actual Innovation Centre, followed by the Country Park, before any houses could be built.

Councillor Bawn addressed the Committee speaking as one of the Ward Councillors for this application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The application was against the MNP with the original permission considered to be perverse by many people, however this application should be looked at in light of that permission.

·       The very special circumstances on which the original application was granted were the provision of a country park, 30% affordable housing; significant employment provision and the need in viability terms to bring forward that employment provision.

·       The managed country park was not part of this application and was part of a further application which may or may not be approved; likewise the 30% affordable housing was not part of this application, so therefore could not aid this application. 

·       Significant employment provision was gone, it was no longer a separate pub and restaurant and would be the equivalent of a breakfast bar. The hotel had gone to 40 bedrooms and would be a barely serviced cheap motorway hotel.

·       The cutting edge innovation centre was now 7 standard commercial units which would only support a handful of jobs. 

·       If housing was needed to make the employment provision viable then why was it not still part of this application.  They were clearly not co-dependent.

·       This had been sold as an extraordinary development providing hundreds of jobs and what was now coming forward was a dreary and depressingly ordinary development and was a significant departure from both the letter and spirit of the original permission.

·       He asked that the Committee reject this proposal and ask the applicant to come back with a scheme which reflected the very special circumstances promised.

J Wyatt addressed the Committee speaking as the agent for Eurogarages, in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The Officer’s report provided a very fair assessment of the application proposals.  The applicant together with their project team had worked closely with officers to achieve a form of development that was both acceptable to both parties and accorded with the terms of the outline planning permission.

·       The applicant had also worked with Persimmon Homes in order to ensure that all three development phases would collectively form a single high quality development with appropriate means of access and levels of permeability between each phase.

·       The principle of development for a trunk road service area, innovation centre and hotel / bar restaurant had already been established by virtue of the granting of outline consent on the site in November 2016.  It was clear from consideration of the reserved matters details for the reasons outlined at paragraphs 7.6 to 7.9 of the report that the application accorded in all respects with the terms of the grant of outline consent.

·       The determination of this reserved matters application required consideration of matters relating to appearance, means of access, landscaping layout and scale only.  In this regard it was important to emphasise that consideration of each of the issues relating to these reserved matters had raised no objection from any of the Council’s statutory consultees including, the Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water and the LLFA in relation to flooding and drainage; Public Protection in relation to residential amenity impact, potential impacts from privacy/overlooking, noise, air and light pollution and ground contamination; the Highways Authority and National Highways in relation to matters of highways; officers in consideration of design form, height, size, scale, materials and site layout; the Council’s Ecologist and Natural England regarding any ecological impacts, the Landscape Officer regarding existing landscaping and planting required; and the Police in relation to ensuring the scheme was acceptable in terms of community safety.  Subject to conditions, all issues referenced had been addressed to the satisfaction of Officers and had resulted in a scheme that was acceptable in design terms ensuring no unacceptable impact on character, appearance or amenity of the area.

·       The layout had been formulated to ensure that the amenity of nearby residents was not unacceptably impacted by the new development and in this regard the nearest dwellings on Pinewood Drive were approximately 88m from the hotel and innovation centre, which would be the closest buildings.  A condition requiring a noise assessment prior to first occupation was also included to ensure further that current levels of residential amenity were respected.

·       With regard to the innovation centre and job creation, the proposed building would have a floor area of 2050 sqm compared to approximately 2100 sqm stated at outline stage and in accordance with the HCA Employment Densities guide the innovation centre and other development would generate between 123 and 351 full time equivalent jobs on the site.

·       This was a well thought out reserved matters application, fully accorded with the provisions of the outline consent, and respected the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of residents in the area.   As all matters considered as part of this reserved matters submission were acceptable to officers and statutory consultees, the applicant requested that Members support the officer recommendation and approve the application.

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

·       Officers had also been concerned regarding the timing of the reserved matters application from the granting of outline permission and this was one of the reasons why the application had taken so long to come back to Committee, however after taking advice it was clarified that all the reserved matters applications had been submitted in time. 

·       At  the point of validation officers had initially considered that the description of the proposed reserved matters scheme did not meet the parameters of the outline scheme.  However following work with the applicant officers agreed a revised description which is the subject of this application.  Members were reminded that outline applications were always indicative with details of layout appearance scale and landscaping reserved for the reserved matters applications.   The addendum report set out the differences in the applications.

·       Within the outline permission the job numbers were not conditioned and did not have to be met, however whilst the numbers were different and were to be delivered in a different way they were within parameters of those stated at the outline stage.  As set out in the report there was a formula to calculate the number of full time equivalent (FTE) job numbers on employment land.

·       The outline application had already passed the sequential test and as there was already outline permission on both sites.  This site was included in the adopted NLP and identified for employment uses and housing.

·       There was no definition for the use of the 2100 sqm innovation centre on the outline permission.   Within the reserved matters application the employment units were for B1 use and were being described as an innovation centre with a floor space of 2050 sqm.  In relation to weight Members could give to the differences between the outline permission and the reserved matters application.  Officer advice was that  the reserved matters description met the parameters of the outline scheme. .  Advice was provided that at outline stage very special circumstances had to be demonstrated for the development as it was in the Green Belt.  Following the adoption of the NLP this land was now allocated and if a fresh application was to be considered the very special circumstances would not need to be demonstrated.  The mixture of development now being proposed on the site was reasonable when compared with the outline, however Members could look at the overall design to ensure that it achieved a quality that they were happy with.

·       The indicative number of jobs on the outline application was 256 FTE and the reserved matters application now ranged from 160 – 320 FTE. There was no maximum or minimum number included on the outline permission, however on the reserved matters application the applicant had  demonstrated that they would be able to provide jobs within the range.   .  Within employment land there could be a range of density uses of the floorspace depending on the type of use and intensity of labour required.

·       This particular land was identified for employment use and any change to this use would require a further full planning application to be submitted.

·       There was no restriction put on the outline permission in relation to the term of innovation centre and was used as inspiration on the type of jobs they wished to attract.

·       The time had expired for the applicant to now come forward with any further reserved matters applications in relation to the outline permission, however they could still appeal any decision made today.

·       If this application and the following application were agreed, the form of access to the houses would eventually be adopted.  Outline consent did not  restrict the need for the applications to come in together.   However there was a condition seeking a phasing plan.  This condition was not yet discharged and Members  could give some indication as to how that phasing plan could look like. 

·       The original outline consent required a footpath link through to Lancaster Park (although this is part of the next application) and that would be a 3m multi-use  route but was a different route to that taken as part of the site visit. It was proposed to upgrade the route taken for the site visit, however as the field adjacent to the footpath was in third party ownership then the widening of the path could not be requested and whilst it might be the preferred route it was only suitable  for walking and not for cycle use.

Councillor Hutchinson in order to stimulate debate proposed acceptance of the revised recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as outlined in the addendum report and an additional condition regarding the CEMP, which was seconded by Councillor Robinson.

A number of Committee Members expressed their extreme disappointment that the application before the Committee bore no resemblance to what was expected to be provided when the outline permission was originally granted when the Committee and they thought it was going to be something very special.  It was a difficult decision and some Members who were not happy with the proposals felt as though they would have no option but to approve the application and questioned if it was refused and appealed if sufficiently robust conditions would be attached.   Advice was provided from the Interim Executive Director that Members should not debate the application based on their expectations of what was to be provided at the outline stage as it was considered that the application was within parameters of what was acceptable. Members could however focus on whether the design was of a sufficient place making quality design for the current time that they would be able to support the proposals.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows: FOR 3; AGAINST 11; ABSTAIN 0.  The motion therefore fell.

Councillor Reid proposed that the application should be refused as the design was not of a sufficient place making standard for 2022.  Its layout, scale and appearance, the design of the development failed to preserve or make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, and the site's surroundings, and failed to create or contribute to a strong sense of place. The development did not demonstrate high quality sustainable design, was not visually attractive, did not incorporate high quality materials and detailing Also it was considered that it was substantially altered from the approved outline planning application with the exact wording of the reason to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair, which was seconded by Councillor Flux.  A vote was taken as follows:- FOR 13; AGAINST 1; ABSTAIN 0. 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED with the exact wording of the reason for refusal being delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair.