Minutes:
6/2019/0604 – Redevelopment of site at The Old
Malthouse, High Street, Langton Matravers
Martin Barnett
Whilst I have concerns about the number of properties
squeezed into the development site, my main concerns about the submitted plans
fall into four main areas as follows:
1. Bin Store
The siting of a communal Bin Store on OML will be
hazardous to OHL and new property residents alike. Additionally, the
proposed store fails to provide for Mallow, Samphire and Sea Pink Cottages who
currently leave their bins in OML. The obvious solution is to allow each
property to be responsible for its own refuse (as in OML), and have individual
collection, or failing that, to have a communal store in a more central
location.
2. Vehicle Access to the Development
The submitted drawings do not appear to accurately
reflect the land owned by Number 3 OML, which is opposite the entrance to the
development. It merely shows one car parked at the end of their parking
space whereas they could legally park two cars outside of their property, thus
reducing the width of access to the development.
With reference to the "Swept Path Drawing", the
estate car dimensions which have been used do not reflect the dimensions of
many cars. The quoted width of 1.804m is surely an understatement when my
modest Ford Focus is 2.04m from wingtip to wingtip. Irrespective of the
above, if one overlays the "optimistic" drawings they clearly show
that two cars (let alone two vans) cannot pass each other at the entrance to
the development or further down the access road. This will clearly
represent a serious and unacceptable hazard with vehicles having to reverse
blind into OML.
The road
needs to be wide enough to allow for vehicles to pass, and Emergency vehicles
and Refuse vehicles (ref the above) to manoeuvre on site.
3. Junction of OML/High Street
This
junction is currently dangerous due to limited site lines and volume of traffic
particularly at school opening and closing times when OML is often used by
parents. This can only become more hazardous with another 19 properties
plus 3 cottages using OML once construction is complete, let alone during the
construction phase. Leading onto ….
4. Construction Management Plan
In my
experience, before approval, any such development must submit a Construction
Management Plan detailing traffic management, materials storage,
post-development restoration, etc, etc. To date I have not seen such a
plan.
----------------
Leigh Merrick
· There is a
way through this by sensible compromise, which recognises a mid- way path
between NEED and WANT which is the real nub of this issue. Stay within the SB,
place householders’ assets beside their house, widen the lane and ensure legal
“no parking” splays up & down the High St are in place. This is what surely should turn this to a
green light. The applicant can do this.
Alan Sewell
We are concerned that the safety issues
around the entrance to the proposed bin store have been ignored and that the
Highways input has ignored the ownership of land in the Lane.
Para 15.20 notes "Concern has been
expressed over the design of the bin store".....our
point is about safety.
Para 15.24 notes that movement of the
bin store has addressed "neighbour concerns
in relation to access from Old Malthouse Lane". This is not correct we
remain adamant that pedestrian safety will be an issue in the revised proposal.
The pictures below of vehicles in Old
Malthouse Lane highlight the concern of many residents about pedestrian safety if the recycling/bin store location and direct
access to the Lane remain as proposed (hopefully a picture is worth a thousand
words).
The Lane is frequently used by children
from the local school, walkers and residents.
Using the picture of the two cars
parked in the Lane the gap between the vehicles and
the proposed recycling/bin store is 12’6” or 381cm and 13’6” or 414cm.
Mr Barnett, ourselves and
other residents have, and still, question the accuracy of the swept path
analysis referenced in Paras 15.50 and 15.53. Despite this, Highways
have relied on the consultant's analysis in spite of
several written communications from residents highlighting that the swept path
analysis is INACCURATE.
The Officer's report Para 15.49 further
demonstrates that inaccurate information is used as it notes the wrong location
of private parking spaces in the Lane!
As Robin Hildreth of Dorset Waste
Partnership was unavailable I spoke with Mike Haines
his manager to ascertain if they have had any response re the proposed capacity
of the recycling/bin store as per their consultation input and I still await an
answer. (This was communicated to Dorset Planning).
No update to the consultation has been
recorded on the planning website. Residents and the Parish Council remain
concerned about the capacity of the proposed bin store, and yet the planners
have imposed a condition to use Waste Bin requirements 18-1004-BR01. What is
this condition and how has it been consulted on?
We are concerned that "pre
application advice and negotiation" (para 7.4) between planners and the
developers did not take account of neighbour/local parish council input. Indeed local input appears to have no place in this process,
a very concerning issue. eg; Parish Council summary
para 7 which highlights that bin store pedestrian entrance exit will be at the
narrowest point in the Lane and that the plans (and the subsequent swept path
analysis) do not accurately show the facts and potential safety issues.
We do not understand why the bins of
Mallow, Samphire and Sea Pink cottages already occupied on the site are not
included in the bin store and capacity calculations. Has account of these bins
and pedestrian activity been taken into consideration?
It is most disappointing
that environmental concerns ref para 15.56/57 have been disregarded by the
planners. We should be insisting on cycle parking, electric charging points
etc. for the future of all our children/grand children.
We support the very many neighbours'
comments about safety at the junction of the Lane and the High Street, and the
need for a detailed Construction Management Plan.
We are not against the development but
would ask that the site of the proposed bin store be modified to a more
suitable, safer location away from the narrowest point in the Lane and
contained within the site.
-------------------------------------------
Helen Wemyss - Headteacher
St George’s CE VA Primary School has been at the heart of
the village of Langton Matravers for as long as the
village has been in existence, being the third or fourth oldest building in the
village.
The health of a school is a good indicator of the health
and sustainability of a community.
Whilst the School has indeed modernised in recent times,
changing from a first to a primary school as part of the Purbeck Review, its
future relies on having children to attend. In bygone times, quarrying and
farming meant that families lived and worked in Langton and surrounding areas
and their children attended the local school. As demographics have changed,
with a lack of new housing in the area, coupled with a drop
in birth rate, the number of local children living within the catchment
area of St George’s has significantly reduced. Our current intake numbers are
as follows:
Our PAN (Published Admission Number) is 15 intake in Reception as of September 2019, so x 7 year groups
@ 15 pupils = 105 average capacity
Numbers in School 2019-20:
YR: 6
Y1: 9
Y2: 16
Y3: 18
Y4: 10
Y5: 11
Y6: 15
85 Total
Total number of pupils living in the catchment area: 36%
Total number of pupils living outside the catchment area:
64%
Numbers currently in School 2020-21 (TBC at October
census):
YR: 12
Y1: 5
Y2: 11
Y3: 17
Y4: 18
Y5: 10
Y6: 11
84 Total
Currently, our School is 20% below its
stated PAN capacity, with approx. 2/3rds of pupils originating outside of the
catchment area.
Our goal is to maintain a thriving and viable School for
future generations. The best way to do this is to have more families, from a
variety of socio-economic backgrounds, living in the village and catchment
area. We generally support the principle of providing more housing in the
village with an emphasis on providing suitable homes for families, including a
variety of styles and sizes of accommodation. The Spyways
development, for instance, is also a welcome affordable development for future
local families.
Old Malthouse in various guises has been supportive of
our School over the years - providing additional parking for staff and
providing play areas for children attending St. George’s premises on their
land. We have an ongoing and friendly relationship with the current owners, who
have continued to be supportive of St. George’s CE VA Primary School and have
agreed to maintain these arrangements for us with the goal to provide us with a
more permanent solution at some point in the future.
---------------------------------------
Kat Burdett
Thank you for this opportunity to make a representation.
I am speaking on behalf of the applicants, in support to
the development. I hope that you will have received a letter from me and
information from our architect.
We have worked closely with the planning officer, Cari
Wooldridge, as well as your design and conservation officer, to ensure a policy
compliant development for your consideration.
This is a previously developed site within the village.
The site lies entirely within the village boundary, apart from part of an area
of existing private car parking, part of which is included within the
application site. No buildings are proposed on this land that will remain as
existing.
The proposed development represents a conversion and
replacement of existing built floor area, a reduction in built development. We
have reduced the scheme to 19 units from the initially proposed 20. This
allowed a better solution for the
provision of a bin store, with access from within the site, as well as other
improvements.
We have followed the advice of officers and have guarded
against a pastiche approach for the courtyard area, although this is designed
sensitively using local materials. The Old Malthouse Lane elevation has been
treated differently, to complement the existing building to be retained.
Including re-using the traditional diamond windows that are part of the
character of this part of the village.
We have needed to ensure that the proposed development
enhances and preserves the character of the Conservation Area and have achieved
the support of the conversation and design officer, following detailed
revisions to meet his strict design requirements.
Overall, there is a proposed reduction in the amount of
development on the site and particularly against the boundary with the open
area to the rear of the site, where more recently constructed bulky school
buildings are proposed to be removed.
The Dorset AONB officer has reviewed our Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment as well as potential for new landscaping. They are
content that the proposal is compliant with the AONB Management Plan objectives
and policies.
We have ensured that the relationships between the
neighbours on the opposite side of Old Malthouse Lane and the site are
protected, with greater separation and a building lower in height. We have also
amended the access and checked to make sure that the residential laybys on the
lane will be unhampered by the proposal. Your planning officer’s report sets
out a very thorough assessment.
We hope that you will follow the Officer recommendation
and grant planning permission for this proposed development, that has been
carefully designed to make efficient and sensitive use of this brownfield site,
to provide new village housing.
Dr Mary Sparks - Clerk to Langton Matravers Parish Council
Langton Matravers Parish
Council objects to this application on the following grounds:
1.Local, strategic
and national planning policies and policies in the Development Plan.
a) The ‘Vacant Building Credit’ policy avoids offering
affordable housing. This policy does not apply to this development because the
buildings are abandoned rather than vacant.
b) The parking area to the North is outside the
settlement boundary, triggering a requirement for affordable housing under the
Purbeck Local Plan (2012).
c) The NPPF (2019) promotes sustainability for
communities. Para 77 says ‘In rural areas, planning policies and decisions
should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments
that reflect local needs’. This development does not,
as the main need is for affordable homes.
d) Purbeck Local Plan. All dwellings should all be
subject to the Second Homes policy; the development plans do not reflect this
at present.
3. Highway issues
a) Transport generation. The transport statement
incorrectly states traffic volume: the statement is based on 20 dwellings
whereas there are 3 additional cottages fronting the High Street, plus 2
dwellings which will also use the lane as part of the redeveloped Science
block. Total traffic movements should be based on 25 and not 20.
b) Vehicular access on the B3069. The visibility splay to
the B3069 is inadequate. Traffic speed data on the B3069 is from 2008; speeds
will not necessarily have remained constant. The development will result in
overspill parking on the B3069 near the OMH Lane junction, close to the village
school and on a narrow part of the High Street which is effectively single-lane through much of its length.
c) Vehicular and pedestrian movement and safety in Old
Malthouse Lane. Despite revisions, there are still concerns about spatial
allowance for the established parking and access to residents’ parking on the
west side of OMH Lane, and pedestrian access. There is insufficient space
for a turning area to the north of the development. The application
requires more robust Vehicle Impact Assessment and Traffic Management plans.
5.Adverse Impact on Nature Conservation interests and
Biodiversity. The demolition of buildings which are long-standing bat,
swift and house martin roosts will be detrimental to these populations.
6. Effect on Conservation Area/density/visual
appearance/design. The development will negatively affect the Langton Matravers Conservation Area, insofar as the density is much
too high.
Construction Management Statement.
Developers must provide a Construction Management Statement indicating how
noise, pollution, vehicle movements and other matters will be managed and
mitigated during the construction phase and how vehicle movements will be
co-ordinated with cotemporaneous developments,
Environmentally Friendly Development.
Plans should include solar panels, ground/air source heat
pumps or other types of carbon neutral design throughout.
73/19/1767 – Development of a Lidl food store
at 76-78 Ringwood Road, Verwood
Mr & Mrs A Bascombe
Objection
We object on the following grounds:
1.
The proposal will result in the surrounding roads
being adversely affected by a general increase in traffic and noise from public
going to and from the proposed site. Ringwood Rd is already a busy road
in, with a garage entrance opposite; Hillside school, The Co-op, Tesco &
Ringwood Rd store. Newtown Rd & Crescent Rd will almost certainly be used
as a short cut when cars cannot pull out and turn right, which already has a
parking problem in work hours, this road has to be
used in single file. Black Hill also has its parking problems delivery Lorries
from Bradfords parked on the brow of the hill along
with cars parked on the opposite side of the road. I am not sure that the
surrounding roads have been taken into consideration. Verwood is a commuting
town there for if Lidl the preferred supermarket shopping can be done on the
way home.
2.
Reading the report regarding the Oak Tree in
Crescent Rd with T1 protection it appears that the revised plan still puts this
tree at risk, it is too close to the root system, and will eventually destroy
it.
3.
The proposed site is not only in the centre of a
residential, surrounded by bungalows. This is the wrong place to put a
supermarket; it would be better placed on the industrial park where Lidl
supermarkets are traditionally found there is plenty of room there for parking
with better access.
4.
Looking at the plan there is a
MOE GATE (MEANS OF ESCAPE) marked up is this referring to the exit on Crescent
Rd There are only six parking spaces
allocated for staff, where are they going to park? I am concerned this exit
will be used for staff & customer parking. The High way
report has concerns that the 73 parking spaces allocated to customers will not
be sufficient, & also there is issues with the delivery vehicles accessing
& leaving the site.
5. Who
would like a car park at the bottom of their garden, with associated noise from
traffic, vehicle doors, along with the noise from shopping trolleys rattling
along, and public use for the duration of the expected long hours of opening,
at least 15 hours a day seven days a week. The car park lights will be on all
evening. Once the trees, hedge & house have been demolished the traffic
noise from Ringwood Rd will be excessive and adversely affected by unsightly
views across the proposed car park to the existing garage premises on the north
side of Ringwood Road.
6. The
proposal will result in the surrounding homes adversely affected by the
construction of the proposed new store; it would overbear adjacent properties
most of them being bungalows and fails to comply with core strategy policy HE2.
Ground disturbance, vibration from construction and HGVs will damage the
structural integrity of surrounding homes.
7. The
proposal will result in a change of use of 78 Ringwood Road from residential
(C3) to commercial/retail, which will have a resultant adverse effect on the
amenity of the immediate locality, and specifically, 21 Crescent Road and other
adjoining residential dwellings.
8. The
proposed change of use is inconsistent with the adopted local plan and core
strategy.
9. The
proposal will result in a loss of a dense group of trees to the rear of the
site at 78 Ringwood Road, and directly behind 21 Crescent Road,
associated with the existing residential use.
10. The
proposal will result in a severe change and loss of outlook from the rear
of 21 Crescent Road and other homes in the immediate locality, which
currently look out onto trees and residential properties
11. The
proposal will result in a significant loss in the Market Value
of surrounding homes.
12. The
proposal will result in surrounding homes being adversely affected by noise
from the plant room on the southeast side of the proposed new store
James Mitchell, Regional Head of Property,
Lidl GB
Good afternoon members, thanks for
considering this statement in support of our Verwood proposals.
I am delighted our application is presented
to you recommended for approval after many months of discussion with your
officers. The positive recommendation reflects the complete policy compliance
of our scheme.
I have provided a brochure on the application
to members pre-committee which I hope has proved useful. This sets out the
evolution of the application and summarises the key benefits of the scheme.
I would like to take this further opportunity
to reiterate those benefits.
The proposals before you today;
•
• represent economic development, providing a
multi-million investment in Verwood, creating 40 new jobs and attracting a
significant CIL contribution.
•
• are fully policy compliant with the retail
policy aspects audited and approved by the Council’s external professional
advisor.
•
• reduce the need for residents to travel
outside of Verwood for their basic shopping needs, stemming the very
significant outflow of expenditure to Ringwood and Ferndown and so making
Verwood a more sustainable retail location.
•
• provide much needed choice and competition
to the benefit of the consumer without adversely affecting the vitality and
viability of Verwood town centre.
•
• represent highly sustainable development
including the provision of solar photo voltaic cells.
•
• offer a net gain in biodiversity on site.
•
• retain the protected oak tree and provide a
significant net gain in high quality landscaping infrastructure including the
planting of 15 new trees.
•
• offer a high-quality design which responds
sensitively to the environment in terms of materials palette, level and scale
thus protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Last but certainly not least is the need to
highlight the public support for this scheme.
Lidl conducted their own extensive
consultation writing to over 10,000 households and local businesses informing
them of our proposals and asking for their opinion. There was an unprecedented
level of response with 3648 people taking the time to give their view. Of these
a very large majority support the proposals (87%). This is indicative of the
dissatisfaction with the current retail choice and the frustration of needing
to go outside of Verwood to fulfil their shopping needs.
The situation on the Council’s consultation
is similarly positive with 82% of respondents supporting the scheme from over
400 direct comments.
In these challenging times there has never
been a greater need for high quality, great value local shopping facilities to
be provided. Job creating schemes that benefit local economies and communities
should be supported.
Our
scheme is such a scheme and carries a recommendation to approve based on
complete policy compliance.
I therefore hope very much that members will
support their officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission this
afternoon.