main

							REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL)

COMMITTEE DATE:         28 June 2007

LIST:                   D


APPLICATION NO:             R/2007/0362/RSM

 Application For:    DEMOLITION OF FORMER NURSING HOME AND ADJOINING
                     BUNGALOW AND ERECTION OF THREE STOREY 39 NO.
                     RESIDENTIAL RETIREMENT APARTMENTS; 3 NO.
                     BUNGALOWS; CAR PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
                     (RESUBMISSION)
 At:                 NESSFIELD RETIREMENT HOME MORTON CARR LANE
                     NUNTHORPE

PROPOSAL

Permission is sought to redevelop the large detached former Nessfield Nursing
Home and smaller detached dwelling, 2B Morton Carr Lane, Nunthorpe for
residential purposes, comprising 39 apartments and 3 bungalows for the over 55s
market. The site is located at a prominent corner at the junction of Morton Carr
Lane with Guisborough Road and the buildings are set within generous grounds
with dense tree/shrub cover at the site’s frontage.

The proposed development would be in the form of one building with the primary
frontage facing Morton Carr Lane being 2/3 storeys and two wings, one 2/3 storeys
facing and parallel with Guisborough Road, and the other comprising the three
bungalows proposed to face the internal courtyard garden and parallel with the
south western boundary. 42 car parking spaces are proposed (including 3 disabled
spaces) and these would be established adjacent to the front and side of the
building. Perimeter planting along the Morton Carr Lane and Guisborough Road
frontages is proposed to supplement the existing. The rear of the proposed
premises would remain as garden.

A Tree Survey has been submitted with the documentation and notes that a Tree
Preservation Order covers many trees on site. It further notes the there is a
spectrum of ages with a number at or near the end of their lives. It recommends
careful future maintenance; the protection of the trees during construction and the
removal of three trees: a pine, Norway spruce and an apple tree.

The Transport Assessment looked at the performance of both the Morton Carr
Lane/Guisborough Road junction and Swans Corner roundabout. It concluded that
the former would perform satisfactorily with the addition of development traffic and
the latter already exhibits capacity problems at certain arms during the morning and
afternoon peaks. It further notes that the development would only play a minor role
in causing capacity problems at Swans Corner roundabout. The Assessment also
advises that there are no specific road safety issues and that the development
would not introduce extra concern on the impact on road safety.

Bat Surveys at this site were undertaken in 2004 and 2006. Both noted the limited
opportunities for roosting within the main building. The roof of the more modern
bungalow could afford opportunities for roosting bats; but no evidence of bats was
found. Two trees are of moderate risk of roosting bats. Appropriate working
methods and confirming survey, together with the erection of 6 bat boxes and 16
bat access panels in the new building, are recommended. The survey revealed no
evidence of roosting or nesting barn owls.

The Design and Access Statement concludes that the development would provide
a state of the art facility providing residential care provision for the over 55s; that
the design would create its own unique identity, whilst respecting the built forms
neighbouring the site; that it meets the requirements of the Design Brief and wishes
of the local residents group; provides for pedestrians before vehicles and minimises
the impact on the existing landscaping respecting the existing built environment in
terms of size, massing and appearance.

The Statement of Community Involvement advises that a meeting was held on 11
October 2006 and residents were invited to submit their comments, which they did.
The concerns raised were similar to those submitted in response to the Council’s
consultation on this current proposal. A further letter dated 5.4.07 enclosing a copy
of the application plans was sent to one of the local residents advising that an
application was being submitted to the Authority week commencing 9 April 2007.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

RELEVANT POLICY

Tees Valley Structure Plan 2004

Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999.

POLICY GEN 1

In determining all planning applications the Local Planning Authority will have due
regard to all the provisions of the development plan (Cleveland Structure Plan and
this Local Plan) and will take account of the following:

a)   the impact of the development on the local and global environment, with
     particular reference to its effect on progress towards establishing a
     sustainable economy and way of life;

b)   the effect on wildlife and the natural environment;
c)   the external appearance, including the form and scale of the proposed
     development, taking account of its relationship with the surrounding area. A
     high standard of design, materials and landscaping will be required;

d)   the effect on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties; or the amenity of
     land allocated in this plan and awaiting development; and

e)   the effect on highway safety

POLICY GEN 2

In determining planning applications the Local Planning Authority will have regard
to the need for the design and layout of the proposal to incorporate measures to
limit opportunities for crime and ensure personal security. Conditions may be
imposed to ensure implementation of such measures.

POLICY H3

Residential development will be approved within the defined Limits to Development
shown on the proposals map, provided that:

a)          in the case of new build, the development constitutes the infilling of a
            gap in an otherwise substantially built-up frontage;

b)          the development takes account of the guidance at Appendix 9 of this
            plan and in particular is of appropriate scale, materials and design and
            in an appropriate location, having regard to the existing form and
            character of the settlement;

c)          the development is consistent with the existing or proposed levels of
            services and facilities;

d)          the amenity of any nearby residential properties is respected; and

e)          open spaces which are important to the character of the settlement are
            not utilised.


POLICY LD 1

Limits to Development around the conurbation, each town and most villages have
been defined, as shown on the proposals map. Development will not be permitted
beyond these limits unless the proposals can be justified as essential to the needs
of agriculture or forestry or are permitted by Policies LD 2, ENV 37, IND 7, AG 2, H
7, H 8, L 8, L 9, L 10, TO 1, TO 4, TO 6, TO 9, SH 15, SH 16, T 2, SER 3, SER 5 or
SER 14 of this Plan.

POLICY T 6
The Local Planning Authority will normally apply the borough-wide highway
specifications, in its consideration of all planning applications and will thus seek to
ensure that new parking provision, accesses, estate roads and other highway
works are developed to a satisfactory standard.

POLICY ENV 31

Development that would be likely to adversely affect any animal or plant species or
its habitat protected by law will not be permitted unless steps are taken to secure
the protection of the species. The council will consider the use of conditions and/or
planning obligations to ensure such steps are taken.

POLICY ENV 32

The conservation of existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows will be encouraged
for their landscape, amenity, economic or nature conservation value and tree
preservation or other appropriate orders will be made where appropriate. Where
new planting is proposed, preference should be given to the use of indigenous
species.


Local Development Framework

CS3
CS20
CS26
DP7

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS

PPS1:       Achieving Sustainable Development
PPS3:       Housing
PPG13:      Transport

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Relevant History

Planning Permission for development comprising 41 apartments was refused under
reference R/2004/1201/FF on 28 January 2005 on the grounds that the scale, form
and massing of the development was not in keeping with the character and
appearance of the area. This decision was the subject of an appeal and the appeal
was dismissed by letter dated 8 July 2005.

Planning Permission for development comprising 41 apartments was refused under
reference R/2005/0255/RS on 2 June 2005 on the same grounds as outlined
above. A subsequent appeal was withdrawn.

An application (Reference R/2006/1208/FFM) comprising 44 residential retirement
apartments and 3 bungalows was submitted, but was withdrawn by letter received
on 10 April 2007.
Consultations

This application has been the subject of local consultation and has been advertised
by means of both a press and site notice. As a result 83 responses have been
received by letter and by e-mail from 14 West Side, 1 Beadlam Avenue, 7, 27 (2
letters) Connaught Road, 9 Selby Road, 20, 30 (2 letters) Beverley Road, 10 (2
letters) Upsall Road, 10, 17, 43 The Crescent, 30 Egton Avenue, 34, 36 Moor Park,
12 Ripon Road, 20 Marton Moor Road, 18 Gypsy Lane, 3 Upsall Road, 9 Barnaby
Road, 22 Bedford Road, 18 Grey Towers Drives, 12 Cookgate; Auckland, 28, 57 (2
letters), 59a, 63, 65, 113, 128a, 133, 190 Guisborough Road, 13, 19, 25, 37, 53
and 1 e-mail Mayfield Road, 29 and 87 Clevegate; 1,10, 11 Byland Road; 11, 31
The Avenue, 42 (2 letters) Kirkham Road; 1, 4, 6, 9 (7 letters), 17, 21 (2 letters);
Morton Carr Lane, 13, 15, 27 Rookwood Road; 4, 8, 12, 15, 20, 21, 25 Cortland
Road all Nunthorpe, 15 Whinfell Close, 47 York Road, 4 Thurlstone all Marton, 24
Hemingford Gardens, Yarm and three e-mails with no mailing address. They make
the following comments:-

1.   There are already sufficient similar developments in the area.

2.   Size out of scale and character with surrounding development.

3.   Guisborough Road was not designed to accommodate the increasing number
     of vehicles. Situation compounded by parents’ vehicles at peak times. Likely
     increase in accidents and problems of access for emergency vehicles.

4.   The site is close to the Nunthorpe schools. School children are already at risk
     from an already busy road and the narrowness of some local footpaths.

5.   Redevelopment of the site would be welcomed but at the appropriate scale.

6.   Removal of mature trees will detract from the amenity of the area.

7.   Existing drainage and sewerage systems could not cope with additional loads.

8.   Threat to wildlife and in particular Pipistrelle Bats.

9.   Would not be affordable to first or even second time buyers.

10. Lack of local facilities to support influx of retired people.

11. Welcome accommodation for over 55s.

12. Pre-application consultation inadequate.

13. Contrary to national and local planning policy.

14. Will result in light pollution from artificial lighting and car headlamps.

15. Loss of privacy.
16. Reduction in visual amenity and property values.

17. Major disruption during demolition and construction.

18. Planning permission for an additional house in the grounds of 4 Morton Carr
    Lane was refused on the grounds of negative amenity impact.

19.   No material change from the proposed development dismissed at appeal.
      Over 20 years ago a two-storey extension at the home was refused.

20.   Inadequate parking – experience of friends and family would suggest the
      provision would not meet demand. Will therefore result in on-street parking.

21. Northallerton site adjacent to station not comparable with Nunthorpe.

22.   Access directly onto Guisborough would reduce problem in Morton Carr Lane,
      but not the wider area.

23.   Destruction of area worthy of ‘Conservation Status’. Would result in serious
      shortage of ‘High Quality’ large Victorian/Edwardian properties.

24.   Would set unwelcome precedent for other similar developments. Similar to
      the Council seeking to demolish Ormesby Hall.

25. Nessfield was home of Sir William Crossthwaite – do not want to see a blue
    plaque on nondescript building.

26. Appears to be a shift from single owner residential dwellings to multiple
occupancy.

27. Area subject to localised flooding.

28. Density too high.

29. Will result in security problems with cars, as there will be increased on-site
parking.

30. Refuse/litter problems due to recycling programme.

31. No need demonstrated for the development.

32. Any redevelopment should be restricted to the Nessfield site only.

In addition a petition has been submitted that contains 923 signatures/names
raising the following objections:

i.    Scale, form, density and appearance are totally out of character with the area.

ii.   Environmental damage caused by loss and/or damage to trees and wildlife.
iii.   Increased traffic particularly at peak times.

iv.    The comments of the Appeal Inspector in determining the Bett Homes Ltd
       proposal. Supplementary sheets sent separately from the above add 108
       signatures/names.

Nunthorpe Parish Council

Object on the following grounds:

       Out of scale with surroundings.
       Loss of mature trees.
       Additional traffic creating conditions for more accidents.
       Impact of construction noise and traffic.

Nunthorpe Forward

Object on the following grounds:

       Scale too large.
       Environmental damage with loss of mature trees and impact on wildlife.
       Increase traffic on an already busy road compounding the traffic problems in
       the area.

Environmental Protection

Advise that construction hours be restricted to between 0800 and 1800 Monday to
Friday and 0800 and 1300 Saturdays and no work on Sundays or Bank Holidays;
that there should be no burning of any waste material on site and any temporary or
permanent lighting be arranged to prevent light spillage beyond the boundary of the
development.

Arborist

Generally agrees with the work scheduled for the grounds and tree and root
protection measures outlined in the report. Initially concerned that an Atlas Blue
Cedar, T38, was judged to be in poor condition, but the report now notes although
lacking in vigour it is in fair condition and that it has a bacterial infection that can be
monitored. Endorses the recommendations in the report.

Housing Area Services Section

The redundant nursing home has suffered fire damage and there is concern it will
continue to be a target for further arson attacks and of vandalism.

Suggest a condition be that it is demolished as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The private sewer has a history of problems and it is likely to need upgrading.
Concerned that the developer may leave No. 4 liable for maintenance of the entire
problematic length of pipe work as a drain to the property.

Highway Services

The Transport Assessment shows that the development will only have around a 2%
traffic impact on Guisborough Road and therefore will not have a material impact
on the road network. Swan’s Corner is currently over capacity and a scheme is
being investigated to make it operates more satisfactorily. The site is located close
to bus services and Nunthorpe railway station, therefore there appears to be no
traffic reasons to object to the proposals.

Our Drainage Engineer has made the following comments:- There are concerns
regarding the provision for surface water drainage and how it is intended to be
discharged. This area is subject to ongoing concerns and requires improvements
to the existing systems, of which Northumbrian Water is aware. Due to current
concerns, there may not be sufficient future capacity to cope with this development;
advice should therefore be sought from Nick Fraser, Highways Construction
Manager.

Natural England

Based on the information provided, Natural England advises that the above
proposal is unlikely to have an adverse affect in respect of species especially
protected by law, subject to the following conditions:

No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation details
within the protected species report (Bat Survey of Buildings at Former Nessfield
Residential Morton Carr land Nunthorpe Middlesbrough, AJT Environmental
Consultants, 4 April 2007) including, but not restricted to: adherence to timing and
spatial restrictions, provision of mitigation in advance; undertaking confirming
surveys; adherence to precautionary working methods; provision of bat roost site;
adherence to working methods as details in appendix 2 of the report – Bats and
Trees.

The management recommendations in paragraph 4.3 ‘Trees and Birds’ of the tree
survey, Tree Survey at Former Nessfield Residential Morton Carr land Nunthorpe
Middlesbrough, AJT Environmental Consultants, 3 April 2007 should be followed,
with no felling or pruning works to be carried out during the bird breeding season
(February to August).

Reason: To conserve protected species and their habitat.

The protection afforded these species is explained in Part IV and Annex A of
ODPM Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory
Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System.

The applicants should be informed that planning permission, if granted, does
not absolve them from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining
and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required as
described in Part IV B of the Circular.

The issues raised in this correspondence represent Natural England’s advice at the
planning application stage and consider potential harm to populations of protected
species from the proposed development. The later decision on a license
application (if required) is a more detailed assessment and usually requires
additional survey information, population assessment and specific details relating to
the likely effectiveness and workability of the mitigation proposals before works can
proceed.

As bats are a European Protected Species, Natural England would further advise
that, subject to these conditions, the proposals will not be detrimental to the
maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in
their natural range (as defined in Regulation 44 of the Habitat Regulations).

Contaminated Land Officer

The Design and Access Statement states that the building was subject to fire
damage and concern is raised that the ground may be contaminated as a result. It
is suggested that gas monitoring regarding the remaining made ground following
demolition be undertaken.

REASONED ARGUMENT

This current application seeks consent for the demolition of 2 and 2b Morton Carr
Lane, Nunthorpe that comprises a former nursing home (‘Nessfield’) and detached
dwelling situated in generous grounds on a site located in a prominent corner
position at the junction of Morton Carr Lane and Guisborough Road. This site is
within an established residential area.

It is considered that Policies GEN1, GEN2, H3, T6, ENV31 and ENV32 provide the
basis for determining this application. These policies seek to achieve development
that respects the character and appearance of the area achieving a satisfactory
standard of layout and design; that respects local residential amenity and that does
not compromise highway safety or the crime prevention aims of the Local Plan.
This site also is fortunate to have mature perimeter planting of both trees (many
covered by a Tree Preservation Order) and shrubs. Any redeveloped of this site
therefore needs to protect the amenity value of the tree cover. Where there is
potential for a development to affect protected species an assessment of the
impact of the proposal and steps to mitigate those impacts is required.

The proposed building would be located in a similar position to the existing footprint
of the nursing home and detached dwelling, although extend both further forward
and rearwards. The north eastern wing of the building would be approximately 4
metres from the detached garage at Peelgate, whilst the bungalow wing would be
at its closest approximately 1 metre from the rear boundary. The building would be
in excess of 21 metres from the dwellings opposite (to the north east) fronting
Morton Carr Lane. With regard to the dwellings south at its closest point the
building would be approximately 12 metres from 4 Morton Carr Lane and,
approximately 6-8 metres from The Crescent. The building would comprise several
elements with a varied roofline rising from a ridge height of approximately 5 metres
at the rear to a maximum of approximately 12 metres at the frontage. This
development would be approximately 2 metres lower than the maximum ridge
height proposed for the apartment development refused and dismissed at appeal
under reference R/2004/1201/FF, but would at its maximum height be 0.4 metres
higher than the application for apartment development refused but not appealed
under reference R/2005/0255/RS. Notwithstanding the introduction of a varied
roofline it is considered that the current proposal does not overcome the previous
concerns leading to earlier refusals and the dismissal at appeal regarding
redevelopment at the site in terms of the scale and massing of the development.

The current proposal seeks to retain many of the trees at this site (three are
proposed to be removed) particularly at the perimeter. The submitted
documentation suggests careful future maintenance and protection during
construction. The Council’s arborist endorses the report. Should members be
minded to approve the scheme a suitable condition could be attached.

Bat Surveys have been undertaken at the site and the conclusion is that no
evidence of bats was found. It was nevertheless recommended that the mitigation
noted above be undertaken. Natural England have advised that they are to raise
no objections to the proposals subject to suitable conditions being attached to any
approval.

The Transport Assessment noted above concluded that the additional demands
placed on the highway network as a result of this development would only play a
minor role in the capacity problems identified at the Swans Corner roundabout and
in all other aspects would be acceptable. This report together with the proposed
arrangements for access (from one of the existing accesses off Morton Carr Lane)
and the provision of 42 car parking spaces have been found to be satisfactory by
the Council’s highway engineers.

The Transport Assessment indicates that the estimated trips per day would be 168
for a development of this type – this compares favourably to the estimated 410
vehicle movements per day estimated for the development for 41 apartments
dismissed at appeal.

The proposed building due to its relationship with adjacent property would not
create conditions that would materially impact upon the living conditions of nearby
residential occupiers or upon the crime prevention aims of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development due to its scale and massing would be detrimental to
the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to
the aims of Policies of GEN1 and H3 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999.