Agenda item

King Street, Melton Mowbray

Applicant: Brooksby Melton College

Location: Brooksby Melton College, King Street, Melton Mowbray

Proposal: Conversion and partial demolition of existing buildings together with new build element to provide an affordable housing scheme of 21 units (18 flats and 3 houses).

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that: Members may remember this application from a previous committee meeting of December 2015 under application reference 15/00247. The proposal is also intrinsically linked to the next item on the agenda 16/00920 at Spinney Campus in Brooksby which was previously submitted under application reference 15/00246.

Application 15/00247 was refused for 3 reasons as set out in the report.

Applications 15/00246 and 15/00247 are currently being held in abeyance by the Planning inspectorate, at a planning committee of August 2016 members voted that the council adopts the position at appeal as set out in a previous report, unless its concerns regarding the development at King Street are overcome.

This application 16/00919 has reduced the number units proposed from 25 to 21, all 21 units will be provided as affordable units, the revised proposal also retains the existing frontage building onto King Street and sets back the new build element to Chapel Street allowing more extensive views of the listed church.

23 parking spaces are provided by the new development the 3 houses would have an individual parking space each. Access would be formed from Chapel Street, the application also involves the dedication of land to MENCAP premises to the north.

As set out the application is directly associated with application no 16/00920 the applicant has provided details of how the proceeds of the development at the Spinney would support this scheme which represents the delivery of affordable housing in a location more sustainable and appropriate than at The Spinney, Brooksby, and will fund the improvements to Brooksby Hall and the theatre in the college campus on Asfordby Road for which permission already exists.

It is considered that the application presents strongly positive benefits with some very limited harm which must be considered by the committee in reaching its conclusion.

The proposed housing development is situated within the built up area of the town where development is generally acceptable, importantly it is considered that the application addresses the previous reasons for refusal.

Affordable housing provision remains one of the councils key priorities, this application presents affordable housing that helps to meet identified local needs. The application has some adverse impacts in terms of the potential to impact on the setting of the church, however this is considered to be of very limited importance due to the quality of the views concerned and the fact that the revised scheme retains the majority of these views albeit they are reduced.

In conclusion it is considered that there are significant benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of hosing supply and affordable housing and protection of heritage assets in particular. The balancing issues, which are impact on heritage assets are considered to be of limited harm in this location and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

 

(b) Angus Walker, objector, was invited to speak and stated that

·         This is a reasonable scheme now it has addressed previous design issues

·         Could meet housing needs however major flaw funding strategy

·         Aware of existing planning criteria. Funding resources used by applicant for other application.

·         Unsustainable application. Does not meet current sustainability requirements.

 

The Chair intervened to ask the speaker not to discuss separate applications and focus on the application on King Street.

 

Angus Walker continued

 

·         Why no affordable accommodation in the Spinney application – applicants want to maximise funds.

·         Affordability is an issue

·         Non subsidised developments at King Street.

 

Members had no questions for the speaker.

 

(c) Simon Chadwick, on behalf of Brooksby Melton College, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Application previously refused and appealed for three reasons

·         Sets building further back, keeps more views of church

·         Heritage assets – retains front of building onto King Street

·         Amended design

·         Scheme was previously recommended for approval, feel concerns have been addressed and scheme will provide affordable housing.

 

A Councillor questioned page 5 of the report. The Chair requested Members only ask questions of the speaker’s presentation at this time.

Cllr Botterill joined the meeting at 6.15pm.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Mr Walker’s presentation.

 

·         With regards to viability mentioned by Mr Walker, page 9 of the report has noted comments and stated it does not affect acceptable for this app but relevant to app 16/00920.

·         The Head of Regulatory Services stated that with regards to funding, there is no viability test with affordable housing. Doesn’t affect acceptability of the application.

·         A Councillor stated that

·         Brooksby have come back with keeping frontage of 1920s /1930s building. Important to keep heritage.

·         Cannot believe a college would want to take down a building at the side of a chapel. Bottom of page 4/ top of page 5 makes reference to medieval. Don’t believe every building should be kept but chapel is George IV era.

·         Lower down on page 5 of the report – Severn Trent have no objections – question the sewers.

 

Cllr Greenow stated that funding is not a matter as confirmed by officers. Applicant has addressed previous reasons for refusal. Move to permit subject to conditions.

 

Seconded by Cllr Wyatt.

 

The Planning Officer, addressing demolition on submitted plans, stated that the existing outbuilding is to be demolished. With regards to Severn Trent – and application needs to be made as part of water industry act not via the Council. Severn Trent Water do not raise any objections.

A discussion regarding the demolition of a house on the site continued. The Planning Officer confirmed that only outbuildings are show on the plans.

A vote was taken. 5 Members voted to permit the application. 2 Members voted against. There were 2 abstentions, neither of which were requested to be recorded. Cllr Botterill was unable to vote due to entering the meeting part way through the presentation.

 

DETERMINATION: Approved as per the recommendation set out in the report, subject to the completion of a s106 agreement for the items listed and the conditions, for the following reasons:

The application addresses the previous reasons for refusal.

 

There is a housing shortage nationally and the Borough of Melton is no different. Historically the Borough has failed to provide housing but is now in a position to demonstrate a 5 year land supply. This additional housing would be in a location that is considered to be highly sustainable in terms of access to services and facilities and with good transport links. Affordable housing provision remains one of the Council’s key priorities. This application presents affordable housing that helps to meet identified local needs. The NPPF states an objective of boosting housing supply and choice, and accordingly, the application presents a vehicle for the delivery of affordable housing of the appropriate quantity, type and location and it is considered that this is a material consideration of significant weight in favour of the application.

The application has some adverse impacts in terms of the potential to impact on the setting of the Church. However this is considered to be of very limited importance due to the quality of the views concerned and the fact that views will remain (albeit reduced) and as such these are not considered to outweigh the benefits by some margin. However it also facilitates the protection of an important non designated heritage asset and the setting of the adjacent listed building in an appropriate and positive way, both of which are considered to be significant benefits.

In conclusion it is considered that there are significant benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply and affordable housing and protection of heritage assets in particular. The balancing issues –impacts on heritage assets – are considered to be of limited harm in this location.