Agenda item

Former Police Station, Southampton Road, Lymington (Application 21/10938)

Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to form 32no. Retirement apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Delegate authority to the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Economy to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a planning obligation entered into by way of a Section 106 agreement and the imposition of conditions.

 

Minutes:

Details:

 

Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to form 32no. Retirement apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping

 

Public Participants:

 

Stuart Goodwill, Planning Issues Ltd (Agent)

Don Mackenzie, The Lymington Society (Objector)

Cllr Andy Ash-Vie, Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Cllr Barry Dunning, Lymington Town Ward Cllr

 

Additional Representations:

 

None

 

Comment:

 

Cllr Corbridge disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application. She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

 

Cllr Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application. He reported that he had spoken on the application at the Town Council meeting and therefore he did not participate in the debate or vote on the application.  Cllr Dunning addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor and was present during the consideration of the item.

 

The Case Officer reported that following the Committee’s resolution to defer the application, a viability assessment had been carried out of the proposed development which had concluded that the maximum viable off site affordable housing contribution was £970,000.  This revised figure had been accepted by the applicant.  Details of this had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

 

Members of the Committee expressed views raising concerns that the application did not meet the housing need in the area and therefore the development would not create a mixed and balanced community, that the scale and massing of the proposal was inappropriate and would not deliver a sustainable form of development.  In addition, views were expressed that the development would undermine the future health and growth of the protected trees within the site, that there was inadequate parking provision and turning space and a lack of adequate amenity space which would impact on the health and wellbeing of future residents.

 

Decision:

 

Refuse

 

Reasons for Refusal:

 

1

The proposed development would not deliver sustainable development and not create a mixed or balanced community and is thereby contrary to local plan policy HOU1 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part One: Planning Strategy which seeks to create a mixed and balanced community by providing a mix and choice of homes by type, size, tenure and cost.

 

2

The proposed development is of a scale and mass that is considered to be inappropriate and out of keeping with the area resulting in an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area and the existing character of the adjacent Conservation Area. In these respects the proposal is considered discordant with local plan policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part One: Planning Strategy and saved policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management.

 

3

The proposed development, by reason of the proximity of the proposed apartments to the maturing protected trees on site, would not allow for these trees to grow into their natural size and form. This is likely to result in the future unsympathetic pruning and potential loss of these trees which would be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

 

4

The proposal makes insufficient provision for on-site parking to serve the development and inadequate turning on site to enable emergency service vehicles to turn on site and leave in forward gear.  The development is likely to lead to additional pressure on on-street parking within the surrounding local area, to the detriment of amenity of the area.

 

5

The proposed development has insufficient outdoor amenity space. Such a lack of outdoor amenity space would fail to meet the reasonable amenity needs and may consequently adversely impact the health and wellbeing of future residents, contrary to the provisions of policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part One: Planning Strategy.

 

6

To ensure that the proposal may proceed as sustainable development, there is a duty upon the local planning authority to ensure that sufficient mitigation is provided against any impacts which might arise upon the designated sites. The proposal will result in new units of overnight residential accommodation which will potentially have an adverse impact through greater nitrates being discharged into the Solent catchment area thereby having an adverse impact on the integrity of the Solent Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). A precautionary approach is required to be adopted and in the absence of a completed Section 106 Agreement an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA and SACs cannot be ruled out. As such, the proposal does not accord with Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 in that at present there is inadequate mitigation in place. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017, and New Forest Local Plan (2016-2036) Policy ENV1.

 

7

In the absence of a completed S106 Agreement to secure an appropriate contribution towards the provision of off-site affordable housing, the proposed development fails to accord with the provisions of policy HOU2 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part One: Planning Strategy for the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: