Demolition of office building and partial demolition of stable block; erection of (part) three storey building comprising 44 retirement apartments; conversion of, and extension to, stable block to provide four dwellings; access, car parking and landscaping.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.   He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Councillor M Clarke, representing Ludlow Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr C Geddes, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to questions from Members, Mr Geddes explained that extensive research had shown that one space per every three units worked effectively and this proposal included a parking space ratio of 0.46 which was more than the suggested parking provision; the parking provision would be sufficient to accommodate those who wanted to retain their cars; the proposal included on-site provision for the storage of mobility scooters; this was a scheme for the “active elderly” so there would not be a need for carers and associated parking on site, however there was ample provision for parking of cars nearby; and the town centre was close and within walking distance.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Andy Boddington, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He acknowledged that the site should be developed and was sustainable and suitable for a retirement development.  It was close to retail outlets and had bus stops either nearby or directly outside of the development;

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment.  A reduction in the number of dwellings would ease parking concerns and lower the impact on the surrounding area and be more in keeping with the Conservation Area;

·         He expressed concerns that the detail of the scheme was the subject of conditions.   More information should have been made available for Members to consider at the meeting; and

·         With reference to the suggestion that the dormer windows on the stable block could be moved to face southwards he commented that, although this would reduce in the overlooking of Stone House, it would mean that south facing windows would look into the properties along Station Drive and should not be permitted.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Some Members commented that this was a rural area and reliance on cars was high and continued to express their concerns regarding the parking provision.  In response to further concerns from Members regarding landscaping and traffic management and recycling/disposal of waste during the construction/development of the site, the Planning Consultant drew Members’ attention to the conditions that would be attached to any permission which would ensure the submission and approval of a Construction and Environmental Method Statement and Landscaping Plan prior to any works taking place. 

RESOLVED:  

That Planning Permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·         A Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the four dwellings contained in the stable conversation as affordable dwellings and a financial contribution of £110,000 towards affordable housing; and

·         The Conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the following Conditions being amended to read as follows:

23.      A minimum of 20 artificial swift nests of integrated ‘brick’ design shall be incorporated into the building(s) during construction. The type and location of the boxes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before commencement of the development (excluding demolition), and the scheme shall then be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of nesting opportunities for swifts.

25.      The new sheltered accommodation building shall be served by a single communal TV aerial and satellite reception system, full details of which (including siting) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing before commencement of development (excluding demolition). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve and enhance the character of the surrounding Ludlow Conservation Area.

29.      Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved drawings, all windows on the western and southern ends of the hereby approved sheltered accommodation building shall be obscure-glazed and non-opening, except for the two kitchen windows on the southern end elevation which shall have opening restrictors fitted, details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in advance of commencement of development (excluding demolition works). The approved works shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the building and shall be retained and maintained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties in the interests of residential amenity.