1 of 24 Planning Services PLANNING APPLICATION FORUM Held In the Council Chamber at the Town Hall, on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 APPLICATION REF: 13/02597 SITE ADDRESS: Neville House, 77 Mount Ephraim, Royal Tunbridge Wells PROPOSAL: Erection of 74 bed care home (C2 use) with associated parking and landscaping, following demolition of Neville House (B1 offices) PRESENT: Mr Douglas Bond, Woolf Bond (Agent to the applicant) Sue Earrey, Land & Development Manager, Hallmark Care Homes (Applicant) Andy Jenkinson, Development Transport Planning Limited (Highway Consultant) Mr William Rowntree (Chairman Chancellor House Freehold Ltd) Ms Emma Gregson (Independent Town Planning Consultant) Mr Keith Crabb (Vice-Chairman Chancellor House Freehold Ltd) Mr Richard Allen, Team Leader, Development Control (Chairman) Mrs Ruth Chambers, TWBC, Principal Planning Officer (Case Officer) Miss Denise Haylett, TWBC, Support Manager Mrs Cheryl Clark, Democratic Services Officer (Committee Administrator) Councillors: Backhouse, Mrs Cobbold, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hills, Mrs Soyke, Mrs Thomas and Tompsett. 15 members of the public were also in attendance. APOLOGIES Councillor Rusbridge and Noakes DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None
Transcript
1 of 24
Planning Services
PLANNING APPLICATION FORUM
Held In the Council Chamber at the Town Hall, on Wednesday, 16 October 2013
APPLICATION REF: 13/02597 SITE ADDRESS: Neville House, 77 Mount Ephraim, Royal Tunbridge Wells PROPOSAL: Erection of 74 bed care home (C2 use) with associated parking and
landscaping, following demolition of Neville House (B1 offices) PRESENT: Mr Douglas Bond, Woolf Bond (Agent to the applicant) Sue Earrey, Land & Development Manager, Hallmark Care Homes (Applicant) Andy Jenkinson, Development Transport Planning Limited (Highway Consultant) Mr William Rowntree (Chairman Chancellor House Freehold Ltd) Ms Emma Gregson (Independent Town Planning Consultant) Mr Keith Crabb (Vice-Chairman Chancellor House Freehold Ltd) Mr Richard Allen, Team Leader, Development Control (Chairman) Mrs Ruth Chambers, TWBC, Principal Planning Officer (Case Officer) Miss Denise Haylett, TWBC, Support Manager Mrs Cheryl Clark, Democratic Services Officer (Committee Administrator) Councillors: Backhouse, Mrs Cobbold, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hills, Mrs Soyke, Mrs Thomas and Tompsett. 15 members of the public were also in attendance. APOLOGIES Councillor Rusbridge and Noakes DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None
2 of 24
INTRODUCTION Mr Allen opened the meeting and the attendees were introduced. The purpose and structure of the meeting were explained. PRESENTATION BY THE CASE OFFICER Mrs Chambers summarised key points from the following written presentation which was additionally illustrated by a powerpoint presentation. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is occupied by a vacant office building with car parking and a landscaped ‘garden’ area to the rear. It is part of a group of buildings all served off a single access to Mount Ephraim. The other uses within the group are also office/commercial except for the frontage building which is apartments. The wider area is predominantly residential in character. Additional site constraints; within Conservation Area, listed buildings near and abutting site, Tree Preservation Orders affect trees in the vicinity. PROPOSAL
The application is for redevelopment of the site to provide a new 74 bed care home for the elderly. This would be a single building, generally rectangular in plan form with set back at the north west end and set forward at the south east end. There would be a single means of vehicular access to the shared access road. Within the sit would be delivery and ‘setting down’ areas and 24 car parking spaces. The building would vary between two and four storeys in height. Elevations would be render, brickwork and concrete panels The roof would be partly pitched, with a central flat section, the pitched area being finished in metal standing seam cladding. Accompanying documents:
Design and Access Statement
Submitted drawings
Marketing Report
Planning Policy Statement
Arboricultural Report
Ecological Walk Over Survey
Transport Statement
Geo-environmental and Geotechnical Site Investigation Report
Statement of Community Involvement
Thermal Model Report It was acknowledged that Notice needs to be served and application site amended to include access to road. SUMMARY OF SUBMITTED REPRESENTATIONS The following brief summary sets out consultee responses that have been received: Petition requesting a Planning Forum, in order to gain a fuller understanding of the issues involved (44 signatures).
3 of 24
From: TWBC, Client Services Amenity
Date: 12 September 2013
Comments:
- Commercial premises must make suitable storage/containment for waste. - Need collection contract with a registered licenced waste carrier.
From: TWBC, Sustainability Officer
Date: 19 September 2013
Comments:
- The combined heat and power plant is considered a low carbon technology, not a renewable energy. However the technology is considered to be acceptable and appropriate on the site concerned. - Recommend various conditions if approved.
From: Southern Water
Date: 23 September 2013
Comments:
- Initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal. - Initial investigations indicate that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide surface water disposal to services the proposed development. The development would increase flows to the public sewage system and properties/land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding. - Advice that applicant investigates alternative means for surface water disposal.
From: KCC, Families and Social Care
Date: 25 September 2013
Comments:
- Question the demand for another residential care house in central Tunbridge Wells. - Any additional development is likely to bring in additional people requiring care from other districts and countries, therefore be a net increase in demand on local resources, staff and social services. - FSC does not support the planning application.
From: TWBC, Planning Policy Officer
Date: 02 October 2013
Comments:
- There have been a number of C2 use developments in the area and the wider B Borough. - The applicant needs to provide a full justification for the need for the proposed use.
4 of 24
From: KCC Highways and Transportation.
Date: 03 October 2013
Comments:
- With regards to local objections and concerns with the overspill to the surrounding private car parks it would be useful if the applicant could provide additional details of their other homes in the area. - Recommendation that there be car parking provision identified for a delivery vehicle and an ambulance.
From: Environment and Street Scene
Date: 04 October 2013
Comments:
- An air quality assessment for the combined heat and power plant and a travel plan should be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority.
21 individual comments (on planning issues): - Would set a precedent for the surrounding office buildings - overall area could be similarly developed to the detriment of surrounding domestic dwellings. - Object to the change from B1 offices to C2 use. 77 Mount Ephraim was designed as a business park, the new care home would effectively be a residential building and deprive the local area of the business space. - Contrary to NPPF policy - new development to be designed to create attractive and comfortable areas to live. Also contrary to local plan policies EN1 and TP4. - Loss of quality of life in conservation area. - Siting very close to the boundary of Chancellor House - overbearing impact. - Need more space between the proposed building and the boundary to allow suitable trees to be planted. - Loss of outlook from flats at Chancellor House. - Overlooking - Loss of privacy, light and air - Density is twice that of existing building - bulk of proposed building would have huge
impact. - Little provision made or space for landscaping - Catering and laundry facilities will be carried on the top floor; air and noise pollution to Chancellor House - Lacks any outside area to provide residents with external facilities. No shade - Only 24 car parking spaces and overlapping of shift patterns - more demand on the parking spaces. Inadequate parking for visitors - Lack of parking facilities. Pressure on surrounding area could lead to parking on adjacent sites. Disruption during demolition and construction. Impact on traffic, parking and additional noise for existing residential and office uses. - Increased traffic - Concerns with noise from air conditioning units, service vehicles, staff comings and goings, traffic and increase in number of ambulances. Also smell from food preparation. - Objections to design/appearance. - Proposed density inappropriate to this residential part of town. More than 85 people are likely to be living and working at any one time. At Chancellor House - 120 people on five acres. - Impact on local water pressure.
5 of 24
- The proposed building layout will erode open space surroundings and character of Mount Ephraim. KEY PLANNING ISSUES The main planning considerations in this case, having regard to planning policies and consultation responses received to date are as follows: - The principle of the use of the site in this location. - Loss of the office/employment use - Impact on character and appearance of area - Impact on residential amenities - Highways issues including traffic generation, patterns/times of use, traffic flow and vehicle parking - Provision of care home - Impact on trees/landscaping. NB: Other relevant issues may arise during the further assessment of the application.
6 of 24
PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT Extract of bullet points from an illustrated Powerpoint presentation made by Mr D Bond (agent to the applicant) Introduction
Applicant - Foley Street Real Estate Ltd.
Specialise in delivering development projects.
Avoid speculative schemes.
Recent example – BUPA nursing home at Birchwood Garage, Southborough.
This application includes a care home operator – Hallmark.
Hallmark high quality care home operator.
Sue Earrey happy to take any questions regarding operational issues. The Proposal Neville House
Vacant since 2009.
Continuous marketing campaign.
Mechanical and electrical plant needs replacing.
Building requires refurbishment.
Total refurbishment cost estimated in excess of £1.1m.
Building no longer viable as an office.
Site now subject to new PD rights for residential.
Emerging Site Allocations DPD allows alternative use to B1 offices but wishes to retain an employment use.
Proposed care home represents an employment generating use.
Proposal will maintain employment function of site.
Proposed care home to create 70 full time equivalent jobs.
Wide range of job opportunities.
Planning Officer supports the principle of proposed use in pre-application discussions/correspondence.
New Red Line Plan As a result of a technical query a slide was displayed showing the corrected red line area on the plan. The applicant had full rights of access. The Proposals
Currently 74 bed care home in place of Neville House.
Car parking to front of building in place of existing car parking.
New landscaped gardens around the care home in place of existing car parking areas.
Comprehensive new landscaping scheme around site boundaries.
Existing vehicular access arrangement retained.
Pre-Application Process
Meetings/discussions with planning, conservation and urban design officers and Kent County Council Highways.
Principle of proposed use supported. Design
Original plans based on a regency style of architecture (drawing displayed).
Conservation and Urban Design Officers had strong objections to the regency style of architecture.
Site lies adjacent to The Common and Mount Ephraim Conservation Area.
Three office buildings at 77 Mount Ephraim identified as a distinct group set behind the more regency style of buildings that characterise the Mount Ephraim frontage and Conservation Area.
7 of 24
Design amended to maintain the integrity of this group of buildings from a character and townscape point of view.
Designed to be a transition from the locally important Bredbury House to the more contemporary group of office buildings at the rear.
New design includes strong horizontal banding, parapets, attic forms of construction and matching window detailing that reflects the character of these 3 office buildings.
Submitted design emerged from detailed discussions with Conservation and Design Officers.
Design promotes local distinctiveness and maintains sense of place. Layout
Initial layout evolved following discussions with planning officer.
Revised layout presented at public consultation event in summer 2013.
Scheme moved back from Chancellor House by comparison to the original pre-application submission to officers.
Public Consultation Findings
Local residents liked the original regency design.
General support for proposed new use.
Majority had no objection to the demolition of Neville House.
General support from Bredbury House.
Chancellor House concerned with loss of amenities.
Officers wanted greater gap between the building and the Conservation Area and Bredbury House.
Largest separation distance to neighbouring buildings occurs at Chancellor House.
The scheme evolved throughout process in response to a variety of different interests.
These together with the feedback from planning, conservation and design officers led to the finalisation of the planning application submission.
Consultation Process
The applicant has been heavily focused on the consultation process.
The result is a comprehensively thought out and responsive scheme.
The scheme has evolved over a period of 10 months - first contact with the Council was in November 2012 and the applicant has since met with a combination of the planning officer, conservation officer and urban design officer 5 times to progress the scheme.
The applicant is seeking to meet again with officers prior to the committee date.
The applicant also held a public consultation event, as well as consulting specifically with residents of Chancellor House.
The applicant has also met with MCL (freehold office estate owners) and tenant representatives as recently as yesterday.
Chancellor House Consultation
Invited to public consultation event.
Held two subsequent meetings with Chancellor House Freehold Ltd.
Sent copies of public consultation plans to Chancellor House residents.
Sent copies of planning application plans to Chancellor House residents at the same time as submitting the planning application to the council.
Invited Chancellor House residents to a Hallmark Home.
Responded in writing to every resident in person.
Continue to listen and plans are being amended in response.
Sent draft amended plans to Chancellor House in advance of this Forum.
8 of 24
Issues raised by the petitioners Relationship with neighbouring Conservation Area
Neville House lies adjacent but beyond the Conservation Area.
Neville House lies very close to important boundary trees.
Car parks dominate the setting of Neville House with little landscaping to the far side and rear of the site.
Proposed building located further away from the Conservation Area boundary.
A lower building.
Important boundary trees to Conservation Area retained.
Levels of hard surface car parking reduced.
Green soft edge to site and building created.
Improved relationship to Bredbury House, an important building in the local townscape/ Conservation Area.
Spatial pattern of development at rear of Mount Ephraim
Proposed building located further away from the Conservation Area boundary.
A lower building.
Important boundary trees to Conservation Area retained.
Levels of hard surface car parking reduced.
Green soft edge to site and building created.
Improved relationship to Bredbury House, an important building in the local townscape/ Conservation Area.
Relationship with Chancellor House
Separation distance to Chancellor House in excess of 30m.
Privacy protected by sensitive orientation of bedrooms.
Roof terrace significant distance from any residential property. Scale and bulk in relation to Chancellor House
Suggested overbearing relationship
Proposal no higher than Chancellor House. Proposed changes to planning application
Care home reduced from 74 to 72 bedrooms.
Scale and bulk of building closest to Chancellor House reduced.
Onsite car parking increased from 24 to 28 spaces plus ambulance bay
Landscaping scheme prepared.
Clarification on mechanical ventilation systems. Reduction in scale of building
Scale and bulk of building closest to Chancellor House reduced.
Second floor set back further.
Second floor minimum (corner to corner) distance (37.9m) increased.
Wildflower (sustainable) first floor rooftop created.
No overbearing or oppressive relationship with Chancellor House. Landscaping
Improved boundary landscaping.
7 new trees to replace the car park along Chancellor House boundary.
Root barriers. Amenity Space
Low key, quiet amenity areas
No disturbance to neighbouring residents
9 of 24
Mechanical Ventilation
Kitchen ventilation located centrally.
Ventilation to laundry facility located at front south eastern corner of building.
Filters fitted to ventilation plant.
Vents housed in sound attenuation boxes hidden within flat roof valley. Car Parking
24 car parking spaces (0.32 spaces per bedroom).
In excess of Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) average 0.24.
TRICS -Nationally recognised and accepted.
No objection from Kent County Council Highways but clarification required on certain issues.
Amendments to scheme being suggested. Revised Car Parking
Car parking increased from 24 to 28 spaces plus ambulance bay.
Care home reduced to 72 bedrooms.
Ratio of spaces to bedrooms increased from 0.32 spaces per bedroom to 0.39 – a 62.5% increase from TRICS average of 0.24 space per bedroom.
Improved car park ratio. Resolves off site parking pressure issues identified by residents and MCL.
Layout accommodates ambulance bay and on site service delivers in response to KCC comments.
Traffic
Proposed care home use will generate less than half the traffic previously associated with the office.
Significant reduction in traffic proposed.
Consultation with MCL and office occupiers
Consultation with freehold owner of office estate (MCL) and tenant office representatives.
Met them yesterday
Happy with proposed use.
No objection to demolition of Neville House.
No objection to proposed design.
Pleased to see additional car parking on latest version of site layout plan.
A demolition and construction protocol document is being prepared in consultation with office owners, occupiers and residents in response to local concerns.
Although the following information slides were not covered in detail at the meeting, they were included in the paper versions handed to those Councillors present and to the Petitioners.
Hallmark
Family run business with family values.
Compassionate and quality care is at the centre of their business philosophy.
Dedication to developing quality environments for all their residents.
Focus on improving the life of the residents.
Embrace community involvement including a volunteer programme.
Home provides business opportunities for local businesses.
Creation of new jobs including training opportunities.
Large investment in the area and wish to form part of the community, not build and leave.
Benefits (Conclusions)
Reuse of redundant B1 office building site.
10 of 24
Care home use maintains a employment generating use on the site.
Significant new job opportunities created in a sustainable location.
Meets growing need for new modern high quality care home accommodation.
A low key use that is compatible with neighbouring residential and office uses.
Design that maintains distinctive identity of site and area.
New building reduced car parking area and increased landscape gardens that preserve the setting of the Conservation Area and character of the area.
A location, scale and orientation of building that respects the amenities of adjacent residential properties.
Revised scheme that reduces the scale of the building in relation to adjacent residents.
Increased car parking that resolves concerns regarding off site parking pressures.
Landscaping proposals that enhance the boundaries of the site.
A use that will reduce traffic levels by half.
An applicant that has and continues to listen to the local community. Car Parking Demand – Existing Care Homes Nationally
Car Parking Provision – Recent Hallmark Care Homes
Location Beds Spaces Spaces per
Bed Delivery bay
London Road, Brighton 99 30 0.30 Y Lightwater Road, Lightwater 58 19 0.33 n Dunchurch Road, Rugby 70 24 0.34 n Alexandra Grange, Wokingham 55 15 0.27 n Bucklesham Grange, Ipswich 55 26 0.47 n Admiral Court, Leigh on Sea 60 20 0.33 n Anisha Grange, Billericay 70 30 0.43 n Kew House, Wimbledon 81 18 0.22 n
Average
0.34
Parking provision at Hallmark care homes.
Average car parking is 0.34 spaces per bed.
Development will provide 15% more than average.
Only one home has a delivery bay for the Biomass boiler.
None of the homes have an ambulance bay. Neville House – Office Use
Neville House is about 1500m² Gross Floor Area.
It has the potential to house up to 100 employees.
It has 66 car parking spaces for staff and visitors.
It has no delivery bay.
Deliveries of office supplies would be expected by lorry and weekly waste collections by refuse lorry.
It would be expected to attract around 280 to 300 vehicle movements per day with 36 during the peak hours.
The Care home is expected to attract around 127 movements per day and about 8 in the peak hours.
Traffic flows will be less than half the office use. Care Home Servicing and Deliveries
Mostly Food - 7 per week: 2 lorries and 5 vans.
Medical and cleaning products – 1 each per week.
Two waste collections per week. Waste Collection and Deliveries Diagrams shown indicated the delivery area and sizes of delivery and waste collection vehicles
12 of 24
PRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONERS Statement from Mr W Rowntree, Chairman, Chancellor House Freehold Ltd (CHFL) Before speaking Mr Rowntree also provided a set of illustrations and notes to the Councillors, Officers of TWBC and to the representatives of the Applicant. He said these showed:
The current outlook from his and his wife’s flat looking towards Neville House, showing how distance and the trees softened the outlook,
The same picture, but with the proposed building superimposed to show the devastating way the proposed building would affect the outlook for many of the residents of Chancellor House.
Architect’s drawing 1099/P-000A showing the site location, and the spacious way the backland plots were laid out when TWBC gave planning permission for the original estate more than 30 years ago. Mr Rowntree told the Forum that even then TWBC were concerned about the effect of this new estate on residents of Chancellor House. Leaseholders had complained of the adverse way their outlook had changed and at least one leaseholder still living in the House had his rates reduced.
Architect’s drawing 1099/P-011B showing the outline of the existing Neville House, the outline of the proposed care home at 05/07/2013, and the outline actually submitted for planning approval. Mr Rowntree pointed out to the Forum that after discussions with the Board of CHFL Hallmark submitted a plan that was actually closer to Chancellor House than the original.
A photocopy of an advertisement from the ‘Courier’ of October 11, 2013 showing that all the properties on Mount Ephraim adjacent to Neville House were shielded by trees, but Chancellor House was not.
Mr Rowntree introduced himself and informed the Forum that Chancellor House Freehold Limited is the company that owns Chancellor House and the Estate, and is in turn a private company owned by the leaseholders of Chancellor House. He started by making clear that the residents of Chancellor House were not opposed in principle to any redevelopment of the Neville House site, but that building a care home to within a few metres of the joint boundary would have a devastating effect, not just on him and his wife, but also on all the residents of Chancellor House. He said the proposed care home was too big, too close, too intense, and too severe. The existing building is around 60 metres from Chancellor House but the proposed building is not only more than twice the size, it comes within a few metres of our boundary. So our outlook would change dramatically from a relatively distant and partly hidden small building to the visually oppressive and somewhat brutal facade of a very close, very large building. Mr Rowntree also questioned whether, despite what Douglas Bond had said to the Forum, the representatives of Hallmark had been acting in good faith when they discussed their proposals with the Board of CHFL. The original ‘Design Statement’ dated June 2013, and which formed part of the discussions in June and July, contains the paragraph,
13 of 24
“Photo-montages are provided matching the above photographs with the proposed development superimposed. These demonstrate the negligible impact of the proposal on the existing views of the site.”
No photo-montages were ever shown to the Board of CHFL, and the Board are in no doubt that the impact of the proposal, far from being “negligible”, would totally destroy the calm and peaceful, almost garden-like, outlook from Chancellor House. An outlook very much in keeping with the character and nature of Tunbridge Wells with its many trees and green spaces. He said that following the sole public meeting on 24 June 2013 there had been a meeting with the Board of CHFL on 5 July. Following this meeting CHFL had written to Douglas Bond making a number of comments and suggestions, the main one asking that the building be moved further away from the wall that formed the boundary. There was no reply to this request, and no reply whatsoever for two months. Eventually a second meeting took place on 4 September when the Board were informed that there had been a complete revision of the plans originally provided, the design of the building had changed significantly, and that the building would now be closer to Chancellor House rather than moved further away. It was not made clear why the proposed care home had now been moved further away from Bredbury House than the existing Neville House and also moved further away from the office block Brockbourne House, yet moved closer to Chancellor House with its 52 residential flats. Douglas Bond made it clear that None of CHFL’s comments or suggestions were to be taken into account in the revised plans. He also said that he would email copies of the revised drawings, and that he hoped to submit the formal application to TWBC the following week. On 10 October Douglas Bond had telephoned with yet a further revision, later emailed, and called again the following day to see if CHFL liked it. Mr Rowntree said it was obvious the Board of CHFL were amateurs compared to the professionals employed by Hallmark, and the way Hallmark had treated CHFL was unfair and unreasonable, and gave CHFL little or no time to consider their proposals, let alone time to seek professional advice.
Ms E Gregson, Independent Town Planning Consultant, representing the collective views of Chancellor House Freehold Limited (CHFL), the freeholder of the Chancellor House Estate, the company owned by, and representing the interests of, the leaseholders and residents of Chancellor House. Her statement comprised extracts summarised from the following written presentation:
As direct neighbours to the proposed development site we wish to strongly oppose the re-
development of Neville House for a 74 bed care home as formally submitted. The residents’
concerns encompass;
the harm to the established spatial character of the site and the Mount Ephraim
Conservation Area
the proposed scale, massing and monolithic design approach;
the impact on the existing amenities of residents and;
the lack of appropriate parking provision, taking account of staff, visitors, doctors and
deliveries;
14 of 24
Background and points of clarity
It is stressed to this Forum that the Residents of Chancellor House are not, nor have they ever
been opposed to the principle of the re-development of Neville House for a Care Facility. To the
contrary, the residents of Chancellor House had been engaged in discussions with the
applicant’s development team and hoped for a meaningful dialogue over the re-development of
the site. One of the pertinent issues has been the siting and scale of the building, specifically
the South West wing and its proximity to Chancellor House. It appears that the engagement
process was fruitless as the submitted plans actually exacerbate the historical concerns of
residents by bringing this wing of the building closer to the shared boundary than previously
indicated during pre-application discussions.
At various stages of the design process this wing of the development was more staggered in its
appearance and residents were encouraged to feedback their comments back to the applicant’s
development team. It was reasonable to conclude that these views would be appropriately
taken on board, however as little as 3 weeks before this planning application was submitted;
the applicants development team presented the current drawings to the board of Chancellor
House, having gone against all the concerns raised to that date.
There has been very little meaningful engagement with affected residents. This is contrary to the
clear and direct advice at paragraph 66 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which
sets out that applicants are expected to work closely with those directly affected, to evolve
designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this
in developing the design should be looked upon more favourably. Given that there has been no
attempt to take account of the views of the residents of Chancellor House, it should follow that
this scheme should be considered with greater vigor.
I wish to draw Members and Officers attention to the submitted Site Location Plan, and ask
them to consider whether they consider it acceptable for the application to exclude any
vehicular access within the red line site boundary, and whether they are satisfied that the
development site includes all land necessary for the development to proceed. The amended
plan show to this forum today has not been submitted to the Council, not has the necessary
notice been served on its owners, accordingly this application appears invalid.
As we discuss the detail of the application today and its impact on the surrounding environment,
there are no drawings of the existing building to refer. This makes comparisons of siting, scale
and bulk between substantial buildings of this size very difficult without such basic information.
We again ask Members and Officers to consider whether such information should be requested
of the applicants.
Harm to the established spatial character of the site and its surroundings
The first of resident’s objections stems from the harm to the established spatial character and
pattern of built form in this part of Mount Ephraim. Paragraph 5.87 of the Tunbridge Wells Core
Strategy 2010, sets out that a great number of factors can contribute to the character of an
area, including the setting of the settlement in the landscape, the historic pattern of
development, its form, layout and density. New developments will therefore be expected to have
regard to the character of an area in which they are proposed.
The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) for The Common and Mount Ephraim
emphasizes the importance of landscaped grounds as part of the setting of Mount Ephraim. It
makes specific reference to the application site (para 6.4.1), and its “Italianate grandeur within
mature garden grounds.” The frontage of the application site is also highlighted on the visual
analysis map that accompanies the CAA as providing a landscape framework of trees and
woodland structure. This designation is reinforced by the backdrop of trees and landscape
15 of 24
setting from neighbouring backland plots. This protected character is strengthened by the
backland built form being generously restrained from its boundaries and maintaining significant
separation between plots. The imposing scale of the frontage buildings, alongside the space
and grandeur of their setting to the rear is a critical characteristic of this important edge of the
Mount Ephraim Conservation Area which must be preserved.
Whilst the application site does not lie within the Conservation Area, the access to the site does
and the Eastern boundary of the application site marks the Conservation Area boundary.
Accordingly any development of the site is likely to impact on the wider setting of the Heritage
Asset. The NPPF advises at paragraph 126 that Local Authorities should take into account the
desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the Heritage Asset. New
development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and
draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.
The current building is one part of a group of commercial units which lie to the rear of the
frontage buildings of Mount Ephraim. The site lies to the east of Chancellor House, Hanover
Close, Southgate and 83a Mount Ephraim. All of these backland sites occupy an altogether
different spatial setting to the frontage properties, with very generous separation to the
boundaries and significant open landscaped grounds surrounding the buildings. This creates a
loose, spacious and grand setting, which provides a subservient and passive backdrop to the
more ornately detailed and visually imposing appearance of the frontage properties.
The built form within the application site and its near neighbours is subservient to the
landscape, with mature and attractive soft landscaping being more prominent than any element
of substantial built form.
Any development that seeks to encroach into the spacious setting that surrounds these
buildings will quickly erode that protected character and, once surrendered, will encourage the
incremental expansion of built form, erosion of soft landscaping, loss of tree cover and begin to
visually compete with the Heritage Asset of Mount Ephraim.
At present Neville House is not viewed as a separate site from the other two office buildings;
they are a collective development that is served from a shared access with no physical definition
between plots. Accordingly they have been clustered within a relatively central location,
preserving the generous space around the buildings both to Mount Ephraim and their
neighbours. At present Neville House is positioned 60m from Chancellor House and 30m from
their shared boundary.
In total contrast to the spacious and open setting of all the other buildings in this backland
cluster, the proposed building and associated development would leave a narrow skirt of
between 5-14m between the building and the boundaries of the site. This is totally out of
character with the historical pattern of development in these backland plots and is a significant
encroachment of built form into an area which is characteristically open in its setting and
performs a critical function that re-enforces the Mount Ephraim Conservation Area.
Members and Officers should robustly defend the existing setting of these plots and enforce
greater separation between the proposed building and the site boundaries. This is of particular
importance where the site comprises one facet of a larger site, which is currently under
occupied and of prime re-development potential. Permitting a built form that sits within meters
of the site boundaries would then be very difficult to resist should the other buildings or land
come forward for re-development. If all of the buildings on the existing site adopted the spatial
principles of this scheme the impacts on the historic integrity of this part of the Conservation
Area would be significant.
16 of 24
The proposed building layout would erode open space surrounding the building and the
important role those spaces play in defining the backdrop to the setting of Mount Ephraim. The
proposed development would lead to the substantial harm of the heritage asset and the wider
pattern of development which is critical to its character. This is contrary to advice within the
NPPF, Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy Policy 4 and the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Policy EN1 and
EN5 which seek for special regard to be had to their settings.
Design and impact upon amenities
In respect of the design of the building, Government advice within the NPPF is clear at
paragraphs 59-60 that design guidance should not provide unnecessary prescriptive detail, but
should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, massing, height, landscape and layout of new
development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Residents
acknowledge that planning departments should not attempt to impose architectural styles or
particular tastes; however it is proper to seek to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness.
The initial design proposals presented to residents, although clearly reflecting the Regency style
of Mount Ephraim, was a building that was well articulated, highly detailed and provided
variation in ridge heights, depths of façade and visual interest. Whilst residents made clear to
the development team their strong objections to the amount of built form, its close proximity to
the shared boundary and the loss of tree cover, the building did at least have architectural
interest.
What has been presented for submission has a monolithic and institutional character by virtue
of the loss of articulation between floor levels, a reduction in the areas of projection and recess
and the continuous shallow pitched roof over the uninterrupted mass of the elevations. The
fenestration detailing is repetitive and has no individual character. The uninterrupted facades
are emphasized by the horizontal banding and roof terrace balustrade from which there is no
visual relief.
The design changes appear to stem from guidance that any new building should take design
cues from the existing commercial buildings at 77 Mount Ephraim. These are outdated 1970’s
buildings, whose design, as cited within the submitted Marketing Report, is one of the primary
reasons why the site has become so commercially unattractive. As the applicants statements
refer, the units have been vacant since 2009 and are likely to be re-developed. To take design
inspiration from built form which has been shown to be undesirable to the market and also
susceptible to re-development is somewhat counterproductive.
This design approach has resulted in the building being “squared” up to its boundaries with less
stagger and variation to the footprint. The result for the residents of Chancellor House being the
South West wing of the building has been pushed closer to this shared boundary and with
increased mass and scale.
Although the plans (1099/P-13 B- Elevations 2 of 2) indicate the finished slab level will be set
500mm lower than the existing level of Neville House, that will do very little to compensate for
the imposing and excessive mass of built form that will be positioned within 7.5m of the shared
boundary with Chancellor House. The current relationship between Chancellor House and
Neville House is spacious and affords definition between the setting of these two very different
buildings, both in terms of their architectural style and their function.
The loss of the existing trees in the south western part of the site, which currently soften the
views across the car park and the façade of Neville House, will only serve to exacerbate the
dominating appearance of the building. The close proximity to the boundary means there is very
17 of 24
little scope for any meaningful screening that would not give rise to post-development pressures
to reduce its height, to enable sufficient daylight into the care facility.
The tight spatial relationship of the proposed building to the site boundaries is the catalyst for a
lack of meaningful landscaping. Without maintaining more generous separation distances,
alongside a more comprehensive soft landscaping scheme, the visual and physical impacts
from this overbearing and visually oppressive built form for the residents of Chancellor House
are significant.
The layout of the building is such that the service areas of the building have been located on the
top floor, meaning all necessary ventilation, extraction and plant may be vented out towards
Chancellor House. Given the large number of residents proposed, the intensity of activity
surrounding these service areas is likely to be quite relentless. There is also a celebration room
and roof terrace proposed on the south west elevation facing Chancellor House, which would
further compound the level of potential noise and disturbance experienced by occupiers of
Chancellors House. Further details on the use of the service areas proposed and their extraction
systems should be provided. This should not be a matter left for conditions, as once the layout
of the building is approved, the applicants would be well placed to contend that the Council had
accepted the location of these areas in relation to neighbouring properties and any impact on
their amenity.
Residents also have concerns that should consent be forthcoming, there is no Construction
Management Plan in place to control the time periods for construction work to occur. The noise
and dust created by such a significant building operation can continue for sustained periods
and become hugely disruptive to nearby residents. The occupants of Chancellor House are
generally of more mature age, and accordingly significant periods of noise and disturbance
would have tangible consequences for resident’s health and well-being. Accordingly we would
ask that consideration is given to limiting the hours of work on the site to Mondays- Fridays only.
The proposal is contrary to advice within the NPPF which seeks for new development to be
designed to create attractive and comfortable areas to live. Permission should be refused for
development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the
character and quality of an area and the way it functions. This is further reinforced by Core
Strategy Policy 4 and Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Policy EN1 which seeks to ensure the design of
the proposal, encompassing scale, layout and orientation of buildings, site coverage, external
appearance, roofscape, materials and landscaping, would respect the context of the site .The
nature and intensity of the proposed use should be compatible with neighbouring uses and
should not cause significant harm to residential amenities or character of the area.
Parking Provision
In respect of the issue of parking provision, the applicants set out at paragraphs 3.2-3.4 of their
Transport Statement the proposed number of vehicle spaces and the anticipated staffing levels
over a shift period. There would be three shifts per day. There will be a total of 26 parking
spaces.
Over the course of a standard working day, assumed to be approximately 8am-6pm there will be
one changeover of care staff, meaning during this change over period, there is the potential for
23 vehicles to be parked (made up of 15 care workers, 6 administrators or auxiliary staff and 2
therapists), whilst another 15 care workers arrive for their shift, meaning there would be a
shortfall of 12 parking spaces.
These figures do not take into account the potential for visitors or doctors to also be present on
the site. The Transport Statement acknowledges at paragraph 4.17 that change overs do
provide peak traffic flows and that if all those on shift had not left before those arriving, there
18 of 24
would be a shortfall of 4 spaces, this is likely to be a frequent occurrence. This figure anticipates
that a number of workers will travel by public transport or on foot, thereby reducing the shortfall.
In either event, what has been acknowledged is that the parking requirement shown is not
sufficient to provide suitable on-site parking provision either in the worst or best case scenario.
The responsible Kent Highways Engineer echoes these concerns in her consultation response to
Officers dated the 3rd of October, 2013 highlighting the shortfall in spaces and the lack of
ambulance or delivery bays. The applicant’s response to the Highways Engineer is that
deliveries would take place within the aisles of the car park, however this will reduce access to
these bays and encourage further displacement of vehicles.
Amended plans have provided two extra parking spaces, within a layby on part of the access
road; this is likely to encourage parking either side of this designated bay and outside the
application site boundary and still does not provide sufficient parking spaces for the end users.
Whilst an ambulance bay has been provided, there has been no adjustment to the layout to
make adequate and workable provision for delivery vehicles.
The conflicts between safe access for commercial and residential users is well known to the
residents of Chancellor House who have regular impingement from the laundry vehicles that
service the neighbouring Travel Lodge. The parking and access arrangements for such a busy
and intensive use are significantly short of a reasonable provision within the wider context of the
site and would result in the displacement of vehicles outside of the application site and onto the
surrounding highway network, which is already under parking pressure. This conflicts with
Tunbridge Wells Local Plan policy TP5.
Summary
In summary, the proposal would result in a significant overdevelopment of the site by reason of
the excessive footprint, siting, overbearing scale and imposing built form which would erode the
current spacious setting of these backland plots. This would cause significant harm to the wider
setting of the Mount Ephraim Conservation Area and set a difficult precedent for the Local
Authority to resist future development of such proportions on neighbouring sites, the cumulative
effect of which would be significant.
The close proximity to boundaries, monolithic proportions and unrelieved façades would result
in significant harm to the existing outlook and spacious setting of Chancellor House with little
scope for relief from any soft landscaping. The confined outside space and provision of amenity
areas and service facilities to the top floor, will create an acute level of noise and disturbance
for the residents of Chancellor House.
The proposal fails to provide adequate levels of parking based on the peak time flows submitted
which would result in the likely displacement of vehicles onto the highway to the detriment of
highway safety.
The proposal is contrary to guidance within the NPPF, Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2012 and
Tunbridge Wells Local Plan and we respectfully request permission should be robustly refused
for this development.
Residents Suggestions for change
Increase the separation distance around the building to its boundaries to better reflect the
established spatial pattern of built form and its function as a backdrop to the Mount
Ephraim Conservation Area.
Particular focus should be given to the South West west wing of the building. The current
separation distance from the shared boundary with Chancellor House to two storey built
19 of 24
form is approximately 30m, residents would wish to see this in the order of 20m in line with
the rest of the South West (rear) elevation.
This would enable a more generous and meaningful soft landscaping scheme and give
more outside space for residents, as oppose to be funnelled into smaller pockets of open
ground.
Improve the architectural detailing of the building to provide some relief from the bland and
monolithic design
20 of 24
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q Cllr Backhouse
Asked for confirmation of the legitimacy of the road access. A Mr Bond
Referred to the plan showing the red line around the site and the access. He indicated where the revised access to the care home would be from the shared access road, which was little changed from the present access point. He confirmed there were no changes and following discussions with the landowners there were no issues and the appropriate notice was due to be served the following day.
Q Cllr Dr Hall Asked the petitioners whether the first design was acceptable to them. A Ms Gregson
Advised that the most important factors for the residents were the siting and proximity regardless of the design, although in her view the original design had more architectural merit. She agreed with the Councillor that the structure was more staggered.
Q Cllr Mrs Thomas
Asked about the apparent disparity on the number of car parking spaces between what was proposed and the views of the petitioners. She also asked whether provision had also been made for deliveries including frozen goods.
A Mr Bond
Explained how the numbers were calculated based on KCC’s standards for Care Homes. For visitors one space was required for every 6 residents which equated to 12 spaces. KCC had considered that the maximum number of staff on site at any one time would be at 2pm including morning and afternoon shifts as well as administrators which totalled 36 staff. On the basis of one space for every 2 members of staff, 18 spaces would be required. Overall therefore KCC would require there to be a maximum total of 30 spaces. It appeared that the petitioners had based their calculations on the maximum possible number of individuals of 36. But in reality and from a survey of care homes country wide they thought it was unlikely that the maximum number of staff would all have cars on site at the 2pm change of shifts. It was also rare for visitors to attend at that time of day. They were proposing increasing the parking from 22 to 24 spaces and this would continue to be above Hallmark’s average provision.
A Mr Jenkinson No separate delivery bay was proposed. Only one other Hallmark site had a specific delivery area and this was to supply a biomass fired boiler. On this site they anticipated no more than one local delivery per day including frozen foods (maximum lorry size 7.5cwt) plus the standard waste collections.
Q Cllr Dr Hall Asked about the level of care to be provided. A Ms Earrey
Advised that that all levels of care would be provided. Able bodied residents would be located on the ground floor with dementia sufferers on the first floor and those needing full time nursing care on the top floor. The set up would be as at other Hallmark homes, which she advised were well-managed, highly recommended and respected.
21 of 24
Q Cllr Dr Hall
Asked why the design had been changed when it had received a favourable response on its design at the public consultation.
A Mr Bond Responded that at the pre-application stage the Regency design had been put forward but the Conservation Officer had strongly objected and had been adamant that it should more closely reflect the modern design of the surrounding buildings. A pastiche of the style on the main road frontage would not therefore have been supported by the planning officers. He appreciated that design was a subjective matter but he understood the logic of the officer view.
Q Cllr Mrs Thomas Asked the agent for the petitioners to expand on her comments relating to ‘local distinctiveness.’
A Ms Gregson Explained that there were a number of factors that contributed, including the scale, massing, height, the layout of the setting in the landscape and the pattern of site coverage. Local Distinctiveness also related to the character of the area more generally and it was more than just the design or style of the building.
Q Cllr Backhouse Asked if the proposed building would be lower than Neville House and whether there would be less impact and mass.
A Mr Bond
Confirmed this was correct. He specifically referred to the slides in his presentation which demonstrated that firstly there was no overbearing relationship and was no higher than Chancellor House, and secondly showing the further proposed changes. These illustrations showed that the scale and bulk of the element closest to Chancellor House had been reduced with the second floor set further back. This would introduce a wild flower terrace on the roof of the first floor.
Q Cllr Dr Hall
Asked how many office buildings there were on the whole site as the petitioners pictures only showed 2 buildings.
A Mrs Chambers Neville House was one of 3 office buildings served from the same drive. Q Cllr Elliott Asked if the car parking to the west of Neville House was shared by all 3 offices. A Mrs Chambers Confirmed that the parking to the north was for the other 2 offices. Q Cllr Mrs Thomas
Asked whether Tunbridge Wells residents would have priority over other potential residents from outside the area.
A Ms Earrey
There was no selection process and residents were taken based on their need. She additionally explained that their homes normally had a predominance of people with a local connection to be close to other family members.
22 of 24
Q Cllr Tompsett
Asked if the design of the proposed home was relating to the features and style of the existing office building that nobody wanted.
A Ms Gregson Confirmed that was correct. A Mr Bond
Added that the appearance of the existing office building was not the reason why it was empty, it was because of the condition of the office itself, which was outdated and not fit for purpose. The location of the office set back from the road also meant that it had little prominence in the public realm. The design of the proposed care home included elements that reflected the horizontal lines of nearby Bredbury House.
Q Cllr Dr Hall Asked about the occupancy of the other two office buildings. A Mrs Chambers
Advised that they were not fully occupied but the extent to which that was the case was not known.
23 of 24
SUMMING UP BY MR BOND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT Mr Bond thanked the Forum for the opportunity to make the presentation on behalf of the applicant and provide the documents for subsequent reference. He did not consider the petitioners were objecting to the proposed use in principle but thought that the main issues seemed to be that of design. He reminded that change to the design had been consequent on the views of the Conservation Officer. Concerning the car parking he advised that this exceeded KCC’s proscribed standards but they were proposing to increase this further and formal papers would be forwarded to Planning Services. It had been suggested that insufficient parking on site would lead to further pressure on other local parking areas but he did not consider this would be the case. The petitioners had indicated concern that re-development of this empty site would create a precedent for development of the other remaining office blocks. He pointed out that this was extremely unlikely as the other offices were 80% occupied on long term leases. He pointed out that they had updated the Forum on changes which would further reduce the bulk of the proposed building and improve amenity in relationship to Chancellor House. He considered the overall setting of the proposal remained spacious and set well back caused no impact on the Conservation Area. He also added that the site was in a sustainable location, they were proposing to enhance tree coverage on the site and the development would continue to provide employment. In summary he hoped the proposal would be viewed positively but confirmed they would still be open to further discussions with both Chancellor House and the planning officers. SUMMING UP BY MR CRABB ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS Chancellor House is not a care or rest home although many of the residents are now elderly and/or retired. Over the years the residents have enjoyed relative peaceful and tranquil surroundings. The residents, of whom I am one, have bought into property in a building which is located in 5 acres of grounds and this gives a feeling of spaciousness. We are certainly not averse to development or redevelopment of adjacent sites but we do wish to raise our concerns if that development appears to possibly affect the future quality of our lives. We have been only too happy to discuss our concerns openly and directly with the developers of Neville House to try and reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Unfortunately our concerns have gone unheeded whereas the proximity of the new development to Bredbury House and Brockbourne House appears to have been given considerable weight. Indeed, to be told to accept what is on offer or possibly suffer something more onerous as an alternative has been an intimidating experience in trying to ensure an acceptable on-going future for the residents of Chancellor House. The major concerns regarding the proposed development of Neville House have already been covered by my two colleagues but I would once more wish to summarise these as follows: Proximity Our major concern has never been one of design as suggested by the applicants; it is the proximity of the proposed building’s closest point to the boundary of Chancellor House. This is a mere 8 metres which is less than half the length of a cricket pitch; yes, ladies and gentlemen, less than half the length of a cricket pitch. This closeness will take away privacy, light, air and, most importantly, our outlook. Currently the outlook is onto an acceptable density of buildings and trees. Such close proximity, and the design of the proposed development will, undoubtedly, lead to an increase in the level of noise and disturbance to residents of Chancellor House due to the positioning of service areas and ventilation units within the new building. Kitchen smells
24 of 24
could also emanate from the top storey of the new development despite modern, but noisy, extraction units. Impact The sheer size of the new building will loom oppressively large given its closeness to our boundary compared with the present Neville House’s nearest point being some 60 metres away and partially hidden by some beautiful trees. Such a drear impact will undoubtedly reduce the value of the major asset of many of Chancellor House’s residents i.e the resale value of their flat. CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS Minutes of this Forum would be provided to the applicant and petitioners and published on the website. They would also be attached as an appendix to any future committee report on the application. If the applicant wished to make any changes to the application in light of comments made at this Forum, this should be done within 14 days of receipt of these minutes. A further period of consultation could take place before the application was presented to the Planning Committee. Finally, the Chairman thanked all the participants for their contributions and closed the meeting.
