APPLICATION: MA/12/0362 Date: 15 February 2012 Received: 8 June 2012
|
APPLICANT: |
Bridport Capital Limited |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
ROMNEY COURT, 25, ROMNEY PLACE, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME15 6LG |
|
PARISH: |
Maidstone |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Change of use of existing three storey office building with semi-basement car park to residential accommodation comprising 6 one-bedroom apartments and 4 two-bedroom apartments with alterations to fenestration and entrance porch in accordance with the site location plan, and plans numbered P1, P2, P3, P4, marketing information as received on the 27 February 2012 and the flood risk assessment as received on the 8 June 2012. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
14th March 2013
Chris Hawkins |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● It is a departure from the Development Plan.
1. POLICIES
· Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ED2, T13
· South East Plan 2009: CC6, BE6, T4
· Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
2. HISTORY
There is no planning history relevant to this application and has been advertised as such.
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Kent Highway Services were consulted and raised no objections to this proposal.
3.2 Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health Officer was consulted and raised no objection subject to the imposition of safeguarding conditions.
3.3 Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space Manager was consulted and raised no objections subject to contributions of £15,750 being made towards the improvement of Mote Park, which is situated less than half a mile from the application site.
3.4 Maidstone Borough Council Conservation Officer was consulted and raised no objection to the proposal subject to the receipt of details with regards to the balcony.
3.5 UK Power Networks were consulted and raised no objection to the proposal.
3.6 Southern Water were consulted and raised no objection to the proposal.
3.7 Kent County Council (Mouchel) were consulted and raised no objections to this proposal, subject to the receipt of contributions of £3,765.29 towards local libraries, youth facilities, community learning and adult social services.
3.8 English Heritage were consulted and raised no objections to this proposal.
3.9 Southern Gas Networks were consulted and raised no objections to this proposal.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Neighbouring occupiers were notified and raised no objections to this proposal.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Description
5.1.1 The application site is located within the urban area of Maidstone, within an area designated within the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) for employment purposes.
5.1.2 To the north of the application site lies ‘The Mall’ shopping centre, and the car park associated with it.
5.1.3 To the south of the application site is a two storey commercial building, and Romney Place, which links Lower Stone Street and the A249. Kent House lies to the south side of Romney Place.
5.1.4 To the east of the application site is the access into the car park and the service yard of the Mall, and beyond this the access into Sainsbury’s.
5.1.5 To the west of the application site are further commercial buildings which front Lower Stone Street, including a Grade II listed building.
5.2 Proposal
5.2.1 The proposal is for the change of use of the existing office building into residential accommodation. This accommodation would consist of 6 one bedroom flats, and 4 two bedroom flats. All flats would be accessed from a communal entrance which would be located within the south-eastern corner of the building.
5.2.2 Basement car parking would be provided with a total of 18 spaces shown as being available.
5.2.3 It is proposed that some minor alterations be made to the fenestration of the building, including the incorporation of some balconies, as well as the alteration of the porch roof.
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan because the proposed use (C3 Use) does not fall within Class B1 Use. Indeed, the application site is within an area designated for employment purposes (B1 Use) under saved Policy ED2 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000. The Policy states;
‘Planning permission will not be granted to redevelop or use vacant business, industrial, storage or distribution sites or premises for non-employment purposes unless the retention of the site or premises for employment use has been explored fully without success.’
5.3.2 Central government guidance and advice has changed since the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) was adopted. Therefore, when determining this application, it is appropriate to give weight to the more recent central government guidance and assess whether this would override the existing local policy.
5.3.3 The National Planning Policy Framework is also quite clear in its interpretation of the retention of employment sites. This states that Local Authorities should review the required amount of land for employment at the same time as undertaking the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments and should include a re-appraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land. This continual assessment of the suitability of land will ensure less properties such as this one, remaining empty for a significant period of time. The purpose of this is to maintain the vitality of town centres, whilst responding to changes in working patterns and business needs.
5.3.4 Clearly, in this instance, the allocation was made in 2000, and has not been fully reviewed since. As such, should the applicant be able to demonstrate that suitable marketing has taken place, and that there is no demand for this property to be used as office space/employment space, then I consider it acceptable to depart from the local plan policy.
Marketing information from applicant
5.3.5 Due to this employment designation, the applicant was asked to demonstrate that the retention of the site for B1 Use based employment purposes has been fully examined, without success.
5.3.6 The applicant's supporting information demonstrates that the premises have been substantially vacant since the end of 2009 (although one tenent remained until the owners of the property passed it to the receivers). On 17th August 2010, these receivers were appointed and local agents, Sibley Pares were instructed as agents to secure either purchasers or occupants of the building.
5.3.7 There was no interest shown in the property, and on 10th October 2011, ‘Allsop’ were appointed to put the property up for auction. The property was extensively advertised both locally, and nationally, within the Estates Gazette. Details of the marketing information have been submitted as part of this application, to verify this. There were no offers made for the property.
5.3.8 the applicants then approached MKH Clokes with regards to letting the property, and they advised that due to the excess office space already within the town centre, there would be little prospect of finding tenants for the property. Whilst accepting this advice, the applicants have continued to market the property for a commercial tenancy with Pestell and Co without success. It is on this basis that they are now submitting an application for residential use.
Assessment of supporting evidence
5.3.9 I am satisfied that the information submitted does demonstrate that there has been genuine and thorough attempts made to let and indeed sell the property without success. The property has been vacant for a significant period of time, and has been marketed both nationally and locally, without finding a tenant.
5.3.10 There is clear evidence that there is an overprovision of lower grade office stock within the centre of Maidstone, and the proximity of Kent House and other large offices (which have high vacancy rates) further exacerbates this problem. I am therefore satisfied that in this instance, the loss of this small element of commercial floor space can be lost without any impact upon the economic vitality of the town centre.
5.4 Visual Impact
5.4.1 The application site lies within a Conservation Area, and adjacent to a listed building and as such, any alterations to the building should be of a suitably high standard, and should respond positively to the character and appearance of the locality. The alterations proposed are relatively minor in nature, with the provision of Juliet balconies, and elongated windows. These changes would not detract from the character and appearance of the property, nor upon the wider character and appearance of the locality.
5.4.2 The change of use would not significantly alter the character of the building, and would not appear as out of place within the immediate locality.
5.5 Residential Amenity
5.5.1 The proposal would not give rise to any overlooking of existing residential properties, due to the separation distances involved. Due to the building being existing, there would be no further impact in terms of overshadowing to nearby properties.
5.5.2 In terms of the amenity of the future occupiers, due to the location of the site, it has been requested that the applicants undertake a full noise assessment, and carry out any mitigation that is required. It has been suggested that a condition be imposed requiring this, which I consider to be reasonable, and necessary.
5.5.3 In terms of internal accommodation, the room sizes proposed are all of an acceptable level, with adequate natural light likely to be obtained. I therefore see no reason to object to this proposal on the grounds of residential amenity.
5.6 Highways
5.6.1 Kent Highway Services have raised no objections to this proposal on the basis that the application site lies within a wholly sustainable location, and provides a suitable level of car parking provision. There would not therefore be any detrimental impact upon highway safety should this application be approved.
5.7 S106 Agreement
5.7.1 As the application would see the creation of ten units of accommodation, this falls above the threshold for when contributions may be paid towards suitable infrastructure. Any request for contributions needs to be scrutinised, in accordance with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010. These stipulate that an obligation can only be a reason for granting planning permission if it meets the following requirements: -
It is:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.7.2 Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space Officer requested that contributions of £15,750 are made towards the enhancement of Mote Park. This request accords with the Council’s DPD, and is considered to be a reasonable amount to be provided. As there is no open space to be provided within the curtilage of the building, and due to the proximity of Mote Park, I consider the proposal to be necessary and well related to the development. As such, I consider this request to be acceptable.
5.7.3 Kent County Council (Mouchel) has requested that contributions totalling £3,765.29 be provided towards local libraries (£2,433.62), youth facilities (£155.49), community learning (£427.70) and adult social services (£748.48). These have been fully justified in the submission, on the basis of the floor space and numbers of bedrooms proposed. There has been no request for financial contributions for schools provision. I consider the requests made to be reasonable, and to be necessary to make the development acceptable. I therefore consider it appropriate to request this money.
5.8 Other Matters
5.8.1 As this is a conversion of an existing building, it is not possible for the applicant to adhere to the code for sustainable homes.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Whilst the application site is located within an area that is allocated to be retained for employment purposes, the applicant has demonstrated that significant efforts have been made to market this property for such a purpose. However, they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to market the property for commercial purposes. It is for this reason that I am satisfied that it is acceptable to allow for this change of use.
6.2 The proposal would not give rise to any highway safety, or residential amenity concerns, and as such I see no reason to refuse this application. As such, I recommend that Members give this application favourable consideration, and grant delegated powers to approve, subject to the receipt of a suitable S106 legal agreement, and the imposition of the conditions set out below.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Grant the Head of Planning delegated powers to approve subject to the completion of a suitable S106 agreement addressing the following:
1) Contributions of £15,750 being made towards the improvement of Mote Park, which is situated less than half a mile from the application site.
2) Contributions of £2,433.62 bring made towards the improvement of library facilities within the new archive centre.
3) Contributions of £155.49 being made towards the enhancement of youth facilities within Maidstone.
4) Contributions of £427.70 being made towards the community learning within Maidstone.
5) Contributions of £748.48 being made towards adult social services within Maidstone.
1.
The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission;
Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2.
The
development shall not commence until details of satisfactory facilities for the
storage of refuse on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the approved facilities shall be provided
before the first occupation of the building(s) or land and maintained
thereafter.
Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interest of amenity in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
3.
No
occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details
of suitable bicycle storage provision have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as are approved shall be
provided before occupation and provided thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable modes of transport in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
4.
No
development shall take place until full details (1: or 1:10 scale plans) of the
balconies proposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of preserving the character of the Conservation Area
in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan (2009).
5.
No
development shall take place until an acoustic survey, to identify the noise
environment of the site has been carried out. Where habitable rooms will be
exposed to unacceptable noise levels (in accordance with BS8233), mitigation
should include a scheme of acoustic protection sufficient to ensure internal
noise levels (LAeqt) no greater than 30dB in bedrooms and living rooms with
windows closed. Where internal noise levels will exceed 35dB in bedrooms
(night-time) and 45dB in living rooms (day-time) with windows open, the scheme
of acoustic protection should incorporate acoustically screened mechanical
ventilation.
Reason: In the interests of the future occupiers amenity, in accordance with
the National Planning Policy framework (2012).
Informatives set out below
A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Adkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester.
The application represents a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan however, the applicant has indicated that all efforts have been secure a use that accords with it, without success. As such, it is considered acceptable in this instance to allow for a departure from the Development Plan