Report to: Planning Committee - 22nd October 2015
Report of: Development Services Manager
Subject: APPLICATION P15G0309: ERECTION OF NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING WITH 10 PARKING SPACES AND AMENITY SPACE AT SITE OF FORMER HOLY TRINITY CHURCH, LICHFIELD AVENUE
1. Decision Required
1.1 The Development Services Manager recommends that planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.
2. Background
2.1 At time of writing this report the application had not been called in by a Councillor for consideration by Planning Committee. The application is presented to committee as it forms part of the wider redevelopment of the former Holy Trinity Church site.
2.2 The application was submitted on 10th July 2015. An extension of time for the determination of the application has been agreed with the applicant until 30th October 2015.
3. The Site and Surrounding Area
3.1 The site is located to the east of the city and currently comprises a vacant parcel of land, which was previously occupied by the Church of Holy Trinity and St Matthew. It is located within a central island at the junctions of Lichfield Avenue, Exeter Road, Wells Road, Westminster Road and Norwich Road and formed the central core of the Ronkswood housing estate. Prior to this development the site was agricultural land.
3.2 The site has no specific land use designation within the adopted City of Worcester Local Plan proposals map. Part of the outer island is allocated as a Neighbourhood Shopping Centre with a public house and retail units located within. The remainder of the outer island is residential, as is the majority of the surrounding area.
3.3 The site is allocated within the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (Policy Reference SWP43/ab) for mixed residential development and replacement faith/meeting facility.
3.4 The site and surrounding topography is relatively level.
3.5 The site area is approximately 0.16 hectares.
4. The Proposal
4.1 This is an application for the erection of a new community facility with a floor area of 600sq.m. utilising a circular single storey form rising towards the centre of the building.
4.2 The proposal will provide accommodation for meeting rooms, café facility, main hall and off road parking for 10 cars. 4.3 The proposal utilises a semi-circular plan form to reflect the previous church and compliment with the proposed affordable housing.
4.4 The application is accompanied by a set of plans together with a Design and Access Statement.
5. Policies
5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 On 24th April 2013 the Secretary of State laid in Parliament a statutory instrument to revoke the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands, which came into force on 20th May 2013 (The Regional Strategy for the West Midlands (Revocation) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/933)). This legislation also revoked all Directions which had previously saved policies of the Worcestershire Structure Plan. As a consequence, the Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:
• The saved policies of the City of Worcester Local Plan (1996 - 2011), which was adopted on 8 October 2004. • The Worcester Balance Housing Market Development Plan Document, which was adopted on 11 December 2007 • The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on 15 December 2012 • The saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1997.
City of Worcester Local Plan 1996 – 2011
5.3 The City of Worcester Local Plan, together with the Balanced Housing Market Development Plan Document is the Development Plan for the area. The Local Plan was adopted in 2004 and only intended to cover the period for 1996 – 2011 and provide for development for that period. It will in due course be replaced with the new South Worcestershire Development Plan. In 2007 a number of policies were ‘saved’. The following saved policies of the City of Worcester Local Plan are considered to be relevant to the proposal:-
BE1 Environmental Standards for Development BE29 Light NE7 Landscaping scheme TR4 Cycle Parking TR12 Car Parking Standards for New Development
5.4 The current local plan covers the period to 2011 and so is considered out-of-date the weight to be given to any relevant policy will depend on its degree of consistency with the Framework. In this particular case the above Local Plan policies are considered to be in general conformity with the Framework. As such, it is considered that due weight should be given to them.
Supplementary Planning Documents
5.5 Supplementary Planning Documents of relevance include: Accessibility (2012).
National Planning Policy Framework
5.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) comprises national planning guidance which is relevant in the determination of this application. The Framework was published in March 2012 and replaced all former national planning policies, except for Planning Policy Statement 10: Waste. The Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out the Government's requirements for the planning system only to the extent that is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. All the policies in the Framework constitute Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice. Economic, social and environmental improvement should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The social role is to support strong and vibrant communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs.
5.7 The NPPF goes on to outline a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. In terms of the proposed development these are:
Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy – The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and significant weight should be afforded to this. Planning polices should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment. Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment sites where there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for that purpose. Proposals for alternative uses should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities;
Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. High quality and inclusive design for all development should be sought, including individual buildings and public and private spaces, through good architecture and appropriate landscaping;
Chapter 8: Promoting Healthy Communities – Developments should provide safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder do not undermine quality of life. They should also contain clear pedestrian routes and high quality public spaces;
Chapter 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change – New development will be expected to minimise energy consumption. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided;
Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – Impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains in biodiversity should be promoted where possible. Pollution and contamination issues should be considered in order to safeguard the amenity of future occupiers; and Chapter 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment – Weight should be given to conserving heritage assets. Where a proposal will lead to substantial harm or total loss of a heritage asset, planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that public benefits outweigh any harm caused
5.8 The NPPF confirms in paragraph 12 that its publication, “…does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision making.” Proposals must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.9 The Framework is in itself a material consideration in planning decisions and sets out at paragraph 14 a presumption in favour of sustainable development:
“For decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”
5.10 This is reiterated at paragraph 197 whereby in determining proposals, “…Local Planning Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. This lies at the heart of the NPPF and is described as the golden thread running through plan-making and decision-taking.
5.11 With regard to decision-making paragraph 214 confirms that:
“For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this NPPF.”
5.12 Thereafter, paragraph 215 stipulates that:
“In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).”
5.13 The fact that a Local Plan policy has been “saved” does not automatically reduce the weight it carries: rather, the question of weight will depend on the degree of its consistency with the policies of the NPPF, as confirmed in NPPF 215. As stated above, many of the Local Plan policies are “saved”, albeit not all fully consistent with the NPPF and, more generally, the Local Plan policies were obviously not prepared having regard to the current development needs of the City; these are being assessed through the emerging plan. The weight to attach to the Local Plan is limited accordingly.
5.14 Furthermore, paragraph 216 of the Framework states that:-
“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:-
• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
5.15 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Against the background set by paragraph 187, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 197 that when assessing and determining development proposals, LPAs should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
National Planning Practice Guidance
5.16 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Air Quality, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, Design, Flood Risk and Coastal Change, Health and Wellbeing, Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments, Light Pollution, Natural Environment, Noise, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, Public Rights of Way and Local Green Space Viability, Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking, Use of Planning Conditions, and Planning Obligations.
South Worcestershire Development Plan
5.17 On 28 May 2013 the three South Worcestershire Councils, of Malvern Hills District, Wychavon District and Worcester City submitted the SWDP to the Secretary of State. The SWDP is now being examined and, to date, two stages of hearing sessions have been held by the Planning Inspector conducting the examination.
5.18 The Stage 1 hearings were held in October 2013, and again in March 2014: these hearings led to the Proposed Modifications (consulted on during October/November 2014) and related to the Inspectors recommendations in respect of the Objective Assessment of Housing Need and the additional sites that were consequently required.
5.19 In relation to housing the Inspector said that the number of homes required "is likely to be substantially higher than the 23,200 figure identified in the submitted Plan." He also ruled out some of the larger figures proposed by developers, some as high as 36,000. He asked the councils to supply further information, and they have now examined updated estimates on likely economic growth and job creation across South Worcestershire up to 2030. Reconvened Stage 1 hearing sessions took place on 13th and 14th March 2014 and the Inspector's letter to the 3 Councils setting out his further interim conclusions was published on 3rd April 2014.
5.20 The Stage 2 hearings took place between February 2015 and June 2015 and considered the strategy underpinning the SWDP, the development management policies and the site allocations. These hearings have now fed into proposed "Main Modifications" that have been published by the councils. On Tuesday 22 September 2015 (Malvern Hills) and Wednesday 30 September 2015 (Wychavon and Worcester City) at Council meetings, all three South Worcestershire Councils approved a schedule of Main Modifications as the basis for public consultation, which will run from 9th October to 20th November 2015.
5.21 The Main Modifications now presented for consultation have arisen from the Stage 2 hearings at which the Inspector holistically considered the SWDP, taking into account his findings in Stage 1. It is considered by the councils that these Main Modifications are required in order to meet the tests of soundness and legal compliance. The consultation only relates to the Main Modifications and not to other aspects of the Submitted Plan. After the close of the consultation, representations received in response to the Main Modifications will be collated by the South Worcestershire Councils and forwarded to the Inspector. The Inspector will consider all the valid responses made to this consultation, together with those made during the previous consultations on the Proposed Submission version of the SWDP (January to February 2013) and the Proposed Modifications (October to November 2014). Following the Main Modifications consultation, the Inspector’s final recommendations will be made in a report to the South Worcestershire Councils.
5.22 The SWDP contains a number of policies that are considered to be relevant to the application proposals and include:
SWDP 1: Overarching Sustainability Principles SWDP 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy SWDP6: Historic Environment SWDP13: Effective Use of Land SWDP21: Design SWDP 22 Biodiversity and Geo-diversity SWDP 29 Flood Risk
5.23 However, the SWDP policies are not considered to carry full weight at this stage of the Development Plan process.
Ministerial Statements
5.24 Weight has been given by Inspectors to recent Ministerial statements, including the Planning for Growth statement. The statement, published in March 2011, declared that the government expects “the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development objectives”. Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has also said that it would be a “material consideration in local planning decisions with immediate effect”. Case Law
5.25 Notwithstanding the above, the presumption under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the proposal shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework confirms (paragraph 12) that its publication, “…does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision making.” Proposals must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF represents a material consideration which should be taken into account in determining applications.
5.26 Consideration of Development Plan policies is not a legalistic forensic exercise. Often policies will pull in different directions. Decision makers need to consider whether the proposal broadly accords with those policies as confirmed in the case of R. on the application of Laura Cummins and London Borough of Camden, SSETR and Barrett Homes Limited [2001] in which Ouseley J. cited R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne [2000]. As Sullivan J. said in the Milne case 48. “It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: “is this proposal in accordance with the plan?” The local authority has to make a judgement bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.”
5.27 Citing City of Edinburgh Council v. Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] Sullivan J. went on to say that “I regard it as untenable to say that if there is a breach of any one policy in a development plan, a proposed development cannot be said to be “in accordance with the plan”. Given the numerous conflicting interests that development plans seek to reconcile: the needs for more housing, more employment, more leisure and recreational facilities, for improved transport facilities, the protection of listed buildings and attractive landscapes et cetera, it would be difficult to find any project of any significance that was wholly in accord with every relevant policy in the development plan. Numerous applications would have to be referred to the Secretary of State as departures from the development plan because one or a few minor policies were infringed, even though the proposal was in accordance with the overall thrust of development plan policies. For the purposes of section 54A it is enough that the proposal accords with the development plan when considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and every policy therein.”
6. Planning history
6.1 A prior notification for demolition of the Church of Holy Trinity and St Matthew was issued in 2013 under Class A, Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (Demolition of Buildings).
6.2 The church was constructed in 1966 and consisted of a cylindrical reinforced concrete frame structure approximately 11 metres high, with associated structures (porch,vestries, heating chamber and stores) 3.25 metres high. The Church hall, attached to the building on the east side, was a later addition in the early 1970’s.
6.3 The demolition was required as the building was considered to be unviable for use with access problems, no insulation, severe condensation, leaking roofs, single glazing and a redundant boiler etc. The hall also needed major investment to bring it up to standard.
7. Consultations
7.1 The following comments from statutory consultees have been received in relation to this proposal:
Worcester City Council Planning Policy: Has no objection as the site is allocated for mixed development within the SWDP.
West Mercia Crime Risk Manager: has no concerns or objections, subject to conditions.
Highways Authority: has raised no objection subject to conditions.
South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: has no objection.
Worcester City Council Refuse and Recycling: has indicated that standard bin provision will be allocated on occupation.
Worcester City Council Archaeology Officer: Recommends a standard condition on access to the site.
Conservation Area Advisory Committee: Supports the scheme in principle, indicating that there was potential for greater enrichment of the front elevations.
Worcestershire Regulatory Services: recommends condition on electric vehicle charging points, cycle storage and low emission boilers which will assist in alleviating pollution creep (air quality) in the area.
Neighbours: one representation has been received supporting the proposal.
7.2 No other comments have been received as part of the consultation process any further comments will be reported verbally.
8. Comments of the Development Services Manager
8.1 I consider the pertinent issues raised by this application are:-
proposed use; impact on highway safety; design/detailing/layout; impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Residents’ Amenities; and impact upon Historic Assets. Proposed Use
8.2 The site is not designated for any particular use within the Worcester City Local Plan. However, is an allocated mixed residential development and replacement faith/meeting facility (Policy Reference SWP43/ab) I have attached weight to this allocation at this stage as it is a clear indication of a direction of travel and the type of use the City Council would consider to be acceptable.
8.3 The site previously accommodated the Church of Holy Trinity and St Matthew which was demolished under the prior notification process of Class A, Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (Demolition of Buildings).
8.4 The site, and its use, was a central key design feature of the wider housing estate, when developed, and as such the introduction of a replacement faith/meeting building will reintroduce this original concept.
8.5 Taking the above comments into consideration I would suggest that a replacement faith/community facility on this site is considered acceptable and should be supported in principle.
Impact on Highway Safety
8.6 In accordance with the expectations of local plan policy BE1 it is necessary to ensure that the proposed development contributes to the interests of highway safety. This is also reflected in the general objectives of the NPPF which has sustainable development at its core, including the promotion of sustainable transport.
8.7 The Church of Holy Trinity and St Matthew did not provide any off road parking spaces. As such the proposals 10 off road parking spaces is clearly a betterment.
8.8 It should be noted that the Highways Authority were involved in extensive pre- application as well as being involved in allocation of sites within the SWDP.
8.9 I must conclude that there are no cogent reasons to raise objection on grounds of parking or highway safety.
Design/detailing/layout of the dwellings
8.10 The NPPF attaches significant weight to the importance of design of the built environment and identifies it as a key aspect of sustainable development. High quality design goes beyond aesthetic considerations including the architecture of individual buildings to encompass the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. When considering the merits of the submitted proposal it is therefore important to consider how the design and layout of the proposed development will integrate with the setting of the site and its surroundings and how it will function as a sustainable form of development for future residents.
8.11 Saved Policy BE1 of the City of Worcester Local Plan 2004 requires all development, inter alia, to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment. 8.12 I consider that the proposal has considered the constraints and opportunities of the site, including the orientation of the surrounding residential properties, and results in a scheme that would sit comfortably within the area with minimal impact.
8.13 It should be noted that the semi-circular form of the site has guided the end proposal along with the provision of the affordable housing units.
8.14 The massing and scale of the building is appropriate for the proposed use and whilst the aesthetics of a proposal can be very emotive I am satisfied that the proposed design utilised within the scheme is appropriate for this location.
8.15 It should be noted that extensive pre-application discussions were undertaken with the applicants and it was considered that the overall ethos of the design approach and layout was acceptable.
Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Residents’ Amenities
8.16 In circumstances such as these the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Design Guide’ is particularly relevant.
8.17 I have considered the proposed site layout in context with the surrounding street patterns and also in relation to the proximity of local dwellings (existing and proposed) and have concluded that the proposal satisfies the spatial separation requirements of the City Council’s Residential Design Guide.
8.18 I must therefore conclude that to withhold planning permission on impact on residential amenity would have no justification.
Impact upon Historic Assets
8.19 The site does not contain any listed buildings, nor is it within a conservation area, but does contain a war memorial which will remain within the site
8.20 In terms of the effect on below ground deposits, the site is poorly understood and as such development groundworks should be monitored to check for archaeological remains. I consider that this aspect can be satisfactorily addressed through the recommended condition. This approach is supported by the City Council Archaeology Officer.
8.21 I am therefore satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on historic assets.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The above assessment of the planning application demonstrates that the application responds to, and is in accordance with, the requirements of relevant planning policy and material considerations relevant to the determination of the application.
9.2 Whilst the assessment is not an exhaustive list of all issues that are potentially applicable to this site, it seeks to address how the proposals respond to the key planning criteria in the planning policy framework against which the planning application will be determined. 9.3 I consider that the benefits delivered by the application, together with the strong presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, weigh strongly in favour of the application.
9.4 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process and consider all material planning issues have been considered including those of the NPPF including economic, environmental and social, as well as diversity, in the determination of this application.
9.5 For the above reasons I consider the proposal is acceptable and should be supported.
10. RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER: That planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.
Ward(s): Nunnery Contact Officer: Nick Kay - Tel: 01905 722560 Background Papers: