Address:       102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX

 

Proposed New Residential Retirement Care Village with Retirement Living, Assisted Living, High Dependency Care Units, Community Club House, Ancillary Retail Units and Conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road. Change of use from unused derelict Land and C3 back garden to C2 Residential Institution.

 

Applicant:     Black Shu Limited

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00875/FULL for a proposed new residential retirement care village with retirement living, assisted living, high dependency care units, community club house, ancillary retail units and conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road.  Change of use from unused derelict land and C3 back garden to C2 residential institution at 102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Mr Davesh Sharma, an objector, and a joint representation from Mr Simon Chapman and Mr Justin Wickersham, the agents for the applicant.

 

In response to a Member’s query the objector stated that he had formally objected to the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 4 to run behind 94-102 Markyate Road.

 

In response to a Member’s query an agent for the applicant explained the approach taken to arrive at his viability assessment for the project and the resulting non-provision of affordable housing.  He explained what he viewed as the difference in process from that adopted by the Council’s consultant in providing the independent assessment.  The Member explained in turn how the Council’s assessment, unlike that of the applicant, had been drawn up by following the guidance set out in the revised 2018 National Planning Policy Framework  and stressed that, as a result, there was a significant difference in the outcomes arrived at by the two parties.

 

In response to a query by the Chairman an agent set out the reasons for not providing the affordable housing on-site.

 

An agent responded to a Member’s queries regarding any discussions which had taken place following the agent’s receipt of the Council’s own viability assessment, the care home costs for the developer and the impact on viability.

 

In summary a ward Member commented on the following:

 

·         The application in the context of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan which had received substantial local support.

·         That the Neighbourhood Plan had focused on the provision of residential accommodation and the division between housing in general and accommodation for older people.  It had encouraged a variety of schemes to come forward specifically for older person accommodation.

·         The intention was that older person accommodation would reduce the need for other housing as older people could downsize locally and therefore free up existing family homes.

·         The support from Slip End Parish Council and the community in general.  Whilst there had been objections from those immediately affected, there had been clear support for the application as it would allow the older residents of Slip End, neighbouring villages and eventually Dunstable to move into purpose built accommodation.

·         The need to ensure the scheme’s financial viability.  He felt that the financial contribution from the applicant was acceptable and was in addition to the other benefits that would be forthcoming.

·         The presence of a large field to the east of the application site, which was owned by Central Bedfordshire Council and formed part of a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) bid, and the synergy between the two sites.

·         His surprise at the debate regarding parking provision on the site.

·         That the provision of older person accommodation in villages should be supported in policy terms and people should not be expected to move a great distance.

·         The stated need for 9000 places for older people in Central Bedfordshire.  The Council could not meet that need and so should look at different types and ways of providing the accommodation. 

 

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

 

·         Many of the comments raised by the objector had been covered in the officer report.  She clarified the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 4 and the resulting impact on residents.

·         There had been discussion between the applicant and the Council’s viability assessment consultant in order to secure data that was required by the latter.  Additional information had been provided to Members in the Late Sheet and both viability assessments had been  made available for Members’ examination.

·         The application was an inappropriate development in a Green Belt location.  There needed to be Very Special Circumstances (VSCs) to outweigh this and any other associated harm and the officer report set out the reasons why it was felt this had not been achieved.

·         MANOP had concluded that whilst there was a  need for elderly accommodation over Central Bedfordshire the location of the provision required consideration as well as the need for those specific locations.  MANOP was not necessarily confident that the proposed site was appropriate to meet the local need or that it was sustainable.

·         Although a health impact assessment had been submitted in support of the application she referred to the officer report and the alternative health implications to those stated by the applicant.

·         The affordable housing provision needed to be policy compliant and was not a VSC in this case.

·         There was no formal objection by the rights of way officer although he felt it was not necessary to divert Footpath No. 4 in order to achieve the Heritage Greenway connectivity.  He had previously expressed concerns regarding the resulting impact on 102 Markyate Road should the footpath be diverted.  The Heritage Greenway did not constitute a VSC.

·         There was insufficient parking provision.  The possible restriction of the use of the facilities to those persons on the site as a means of reducing demand for parking meant treating the community in isolation from Slip End which would not be acceptable from a sustainability viewpoint and could have a long term impact on viability.

·         The local aspirations in the Neighbourhood Plan were acknowledged but elderly persons accommodation sites had to be directly related to the settlements they served, meet identified need and be supported by the Council’s own specialists.

·         MANOP had indicated that the majority of the residents on the site development were not likely to be from the area so local homes would not necessarily be released for sale.

·         There was clear support for the application from Slip End Parish Council but no clear indication of views from local residents.

·         It was not possible to comment if there was any synergy with application site and the Council owned site to the east.

 

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

 

·         There were 169 residential parking spaces proposed instead of 175.  Whilst this was acceptable the issue of the number of commercial parking spaces remained unresolved.

·         A drawing had been supplied which indicated the provision of acceptable footways.  The highway would not be to Council standards but given the type of development, and that the roads would not be adopted, an objection could not be justified.

 

A Member, speaking as the Executive Member for Adults, Social Care and Housing Operations (HRA) commented as follows:

 

·         That, whilst issues remained outstanding with the application, Members had to recognise the identified need for 9000 units of older persons accommodation and accept a requirement to be flexible in the means of delivery.

·         Members should not assume that the 9000 units could be provided in towns alone.

·         She was concerned that policy was not driving the achievement of the Council’s aspirations and that there was an absence of the supplementary planning guidance on delivering accommodation for older people she had understood to be forthcoming.

·         She expressed concern regarding the consistency of weight awarded to MANOP’s comments and the need for the principles of the delivery of older persons accommodation to be clearly and fully established.

 

A Member advised that the supplementary planning guidance (The Housing Enabling Document) formed part of the emerging Local Plan.

 

In summary a second ward Member commented on the following:

 

·         He endorsed what had been said by the first ward Member.

·         He expressed surprise at the relatively low level of objection to the application and the lack of any comment and, therefore, steer from the local community.  He acknowledged the objections raised by those residents of Markyate Road immediately affected.

·         He stressed he had retained an open mind regarding the application.

·         The parishes of Slip End and Caddington had a history of working well together, as reflected in the production of the joint Neighbourhood Plan, and they shared a pragmatic attitude toward development.

·         The community facilities offered by the development would benefit Slip End.

·         Many of the residents of Slip End moved there from outside the parish and become permanent because it was an attractive area.

·         The aim was to make the Heritage Greenway accessible all year and the existing section of Footpath No. 4 in Markyate Road could not be upgraded to the standard sought which was why the suggested alternative route was attractive.  However, he acknowledged that in itself was not a VSC and the existing route was usable.

·         The possible reason for the absence of comment from the Council’s leisure team.

·         The need for suitable conditions relating to archaeology If the application were to be approved.

·         There was no flood risk due to the site’s high location.

·         Parking provision should be at a suitable level.

·         He recognised the benefits that would be forthcoming but expressed unease in going against the officer’s position in that the applicant had not proved that the benefits of the application outweighed the harm and the officer had therefore recommended refusal for a number of reasons.

 

The first ward Member stressed the need to divert Footpath No. 4 at some time in order to deliver the Heritage Greenway.  He then sought clarification as to possibility of deferring further consideration of the application until the next meeting to allow discussion to take place regarding the level of off-site contribution.  He also indicated that he wished to better understand the differences between the approaches adopted by the applicant and the Council on viability assessments.  In response the Chairman stated that the applicant had been offered the opportunity to withdraw the application to allow such discussions to take place but had declined and his personal view was that deferral would not, therefore, be worthwhile.  Further, a Member had earlier explained the approach on viability as set out in the latest NPPF and that this did not appear to have been adopted by the applicant.

 

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

 

·         That the application would be dealt with in two parts.  First, if it was not viable to provide 30% affordable housing it would not be policy compliant.  Second, if the application met this requirement then to create a VSC, because the site lay in the Green Belt then a greater than policy compliant contribution to affordable housing or on-site affordable housing, as well as VSCs to justify development in the Green Belt, was required.

·         The application had the support of the Parish Council and, broadly, that of the community despite the visual impact.

·         The Neighbourhood Plan had been formally adopted and therefore carried weight.

·         The demand for accommodation and the attractiveness of a rural location for some people, rather than towns, for such developments.

·         That whilst the officer report followed the Council’s policy the community supported the scheme as did the Executive Member.

·         Uncertainty regarding Members’ full understanding of the issues relating to the viability assessments.

·         Entrance and egress into the site in view of local traffic speeds.

·         The high market price of buying retirement accommodation and how the proposed development, without an affordable element and even if it were off-site, would fail to help meet demand.

·         A third planning officer explained that there were wide differences in the outcomes of the two viability assessments.  Further discussion could take place and the applicant had been offered, but declined, the opportunity to withdraw the application for consideration at a later date.  The officer stated that the fundamental issue in terms of the viability was that the starting point was on-site provision of affordable accommodation but the applicant’s was off-site provision.  Further, the site was in the Green Belt and therefore not considered appropriate.  No VSCs had been identified.  The officer advised  that the new Local Plan contained specific references to the provision of older persons accommodation.

·         What was a fair balance in the number of affordable homes in this type of application compared to the provision of 30-40 ordinary houses.

·         How many jobs would be created given the previous care home in Caddington closed because it was unable to recruit suitable staff and there were a large number of vacancies in the sector.

·         The huge unmet need for older persons accommodation.

·         The NPPF not been amended until after the applicant’s viability assessment had been submitted to the Council and whether all applicants with outstanding applications had been advised of the revision.

·         Concerns at the absence of discussions between the applicant and the Council’s consultants.

 

Note: at this point in the debate it was moved and seconded to approve the application.  In response Councillor Young, as set out in paragraph 9.4 of Part 4E of the Constitution, requested that a recorded vote be taken.  He advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the application then it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State and the reasons for its approval justified.

 

·         The Chairman referred to the revisions in the NPPF which had strengthened the restrictions on Green Belt development.  A planning officer confirmed that if the application was approved the Council would be required to refer it to the Secretary of State given that it was a large scale major development, it was contrary to policy and within the Green Belt.   She described the related Green Belt test and recent legal judgements in this area relating to VSCs.  A number of VSCs would therefore need to be brought forward should the application be approved.

·         A comparison with the size of the application and the existing Greenfields extra care facility in Leighton Buzzard and the parking problems which had subsequently arisen at the latter due to insufficient parking provision.

·         The size of the existing loss of Green Belt in Central Bedfordshire due to growth demand and the apparent contradiction between the actions of Secretaries of State in permitting this and the policies in the revised NPPF.  A Member commented that the Green Belt sites concerned had been allocated for many years and there was a major difference between those and a new application.

 

The mover of the recommendation to approve reminded the meeting that each application was determined on its own merits.  He then listed the planning conditions in support of approval these being:

 

The application supported the aspirations of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan

Would provide enhancements to the landscape and biodiversity

Would provide improvements to the Heritage Greenway

Met identified need

Would create jobs at both the building stage and in the completed scheme

Would free up accommodation in central Bedfordshire and its neighbours as older people downsized.

 

The planning officer stated that, for the reasons set out in the report, the officers could not agree with the proposed conditions as being VSCs and would not recommend that they were put forward to the Secretary of State as such.  She suggested that consideration be given to deferring the application in order to allow discussion to take place on the issues raised.

 

On being put to the vote 2 Members voted to approve the application (Councillors Dalgarno and Nicols), 8 voted against approval (Councillors Berry, Blair, Collins, Firth, Ghent, Matthews, Swain and Young) and 1 abstained (Councillor Smith).

 

The motion to approve the application being defeated it was then moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.  On being put to the vote 6 Members voted to refuse the application, 3 voted against refusal and 2 abstained.

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/18/00875/FULL relating to 102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX be refused as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.