Friday, 26 July 2013

Overbearing Aspect!

Some pictures showing access and overbearing aspect the development would have over Ash Grove and Brunton Road.





Sunday, 14 July 2013

Letter to the Planning Inspectorate


The Planning Inspectorate
3/18A Eagle Wing
Temple Wing House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
BRISTOL
B51 6PN 

FAO Mr. N. Patch
                                                                                                17th June 2013
Dear Mr. Patch,

 
Appeal Reference: 13/00014/REF. Appeal by: Your Life Management Services and Mitchell’s of Lancaster 

Appeal Description: Erection of 54 extra care apartments for the over 70s (use class C2) with associated landscaping and car parking 

Site Address: Greaves Hotel, Greaves Road, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 4UW 

Inspectorate Reference: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739 

Following Planning Inspectorate advice on the avoidance of duplication, we, the undersigned, are making a single submission AGAINST the upholding of the above appeal.

 A summary of our case is listed below. The detail of our concerns is set out in the corresponding Sections which follow this letter, and in the three Appendices to those sections.
 

Summary of Case against upholding the Appeal 

1. Lack of compliance with policy
The developer has been over-reliant on the “presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF, 2012), at the expense of balance and compliance with other national and local policy imperatives. Details of non-compliance are provided. 

2. Contribution to the achievement of sustainable development
The level of economic, social and environmental benefit for the local area may not be sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages incurred by the build. Detail of issues is provided. 

3. Traffic/Parking issues
The location and nature of the site is unsuitable for the attendant traffic demands, such that a range of issues remain largely unresolved. These are explained and commented on. 

4. Lack of Compliance with National and Local Conservation and Heritage Policy
There has been inadequate discussion of the “Conservation Area and of the significance of the heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting, and the proposal’s impact upon that significance  in line with NPPF, para 128” (Conservation Officer). The significance of the heritage of the area is explained, with particular reference to English Heritage’s concept of sense of place which provides evidence of aspects of life and the potential of a place to yield evidence about its past activity. 

5. Lack of Impact based Planning re Public Amenities
There would be several adverse effects on the amenities of local residents. Issues have been ignored, or their importance unreasonably diminished by the skewed imperative towards development. There has been a significant and unreasonable lack of impact based planning The Householder Development Consents Review (2007) is referenced.

6. Consultants’ Reports
Not all of the reports can be deemed supportive. There are inadequacies and issues of misinterpretation in relation to some aspects of various consultancies, which mean that issues have either not been properly addressed, or they have been discounted on slight or erroneous grounds. Relevant Reports are identified.

7. Design/Site fit
The shoe-in fit incurs design problems in relation to overshadowing, privacy, loss of daylight, and the build does not comply with national (or local) good practice re  separation distances. The aesthetic design is poor from every elevation, industrial in its use of materials, out of character with the area, and is already looking like an anachronism from the last decade. Shortcomings are identified and illustrated.

8. Relationship to the scale and pattern of existing development in the area
The build would bear little relationship to existing development in the wider Greaves area in terms of character, aesthetic, building materials, roofline, overbearing  proximity to smaller neighbouring properties, need for external servicing, traffic, access, parking issues. In its immediate vicinity, it is totally anomalous with the surrounding neighbourhood. Illustrations are provided. 

9. Community Response and Local Opposition
In the community there is much concern about adverse impacts, and there has been a considerable amount of local participation in the democratic process. Written and personal representations have been made to the developers, which have not really been heeded. The developers’ claims about their level of meaningful engagement with the community is refuted in an accompanying appendix.  

As a community we do realise that the planning process has its procedures concerning appeals, and that these will deal mainly with the issues raised in the Refusal of Consent, and with the grounds raised by the appellant. To address the Planning Agenda on like terms, we have engaged a Third Party Response to be made on our behalf by a professional Planning Consultant. However, the strength and range of our collective misgivings about this development occurring on this site, and the very adverse effects it will have on us all, (and on some more than others) has lead us to put forward the wider community perspective in this submission. We are not anti-development, but we do not believe this over-large build is right in this location, for all the reasons we set out.  

It cannot comply with the LCC Draft Local Plan 2003-2023/4, Part A Development Management DPD – Preferred Option Stage: Policy CSC1-Design of Development.

It does not have/cannot/ cannot ensure:
  • “a high quality of design
  • appropriate siting, layout, orientation, scale, massing
  • enhance the visual amenity of the locality
  • no detrimental impact occurs to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties particularly in relation to overshadowing, visual amenity and pollution
  • suitable and safe access to the existing highway network and road layout design
  • due regard to the implications of highway capacity
  • the street scene is not compromised by inappropriate parking provision.”
The benefits of the build are possibly negligible, and the disadvantages far outweigh any sustainability the development might offer. This proposed development in this particular location falls into the category of having, as the Householder Development Consents Review (2007),1.12, suggested: too many “cumulative impacts, which make it unacceptable”.

The City Council had the wisdom to see the development holistically, and to listen to the concerns of the local community as part of the democratic process. The Council’s reasons for withholding planning permission were absolutely valid and reasonable, and the City Council has the complete backing and support of the local community in its stance on this matter. 

We ask, and very much hope, that the Planning Inspectorate will also take a balanced view, which is not just founded on “ the presumption in favour of sustainable development” but which is holistic and takes  account of other policy directives and guidelines, against which this proposal and appeal can be found seriously wanting. 

We ask that the appeal be refused.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Neal, Professor Michael Abramson, Teresa Abramson, Gillian Whitworth, David Bennett, Karen Miller, Sorrell Thompson, Gary Rycroft, Dr Columba Scallon, Jennifer Bennett, David Denver, Barbara Denver, Denise Lancaster, Daniel Whittle.

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents

Section 1. Lack of compliance with policy
The developer has been over-reliant on the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” (NPPF, 2012), at the expense of balance with other national and local policy imperatives which inform and determine good planning practice. 

There are numerous examples of non-compliance with national and local policy. Those identified are set out in Appendix 1 of this letter (attached).  
The Letter of Refusal of Consent from Lancaster City Council similarly specifies a number of policies which the proposed development was in breach of.  

Appeal:13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 2. Contribution to the achievement of sustainable development
The development may not yield the level of economic, social and environmental benefit to the community to outweigh the disadvantages incurred by the build (NPPF, 2012: Para 7). 
As a business venture, which this undoubtedly is, there should be significant, positive economic and social benefits to the local community. A number of factors suggest that this is not the case:
·         Local need for this type of care is uncertain – Lancaster Local Plan (2.6.13) states: “there is likely to be only limited demand for additional accommodation for elderly people”.  There are at least two residential care homes for the elderly within 500metres (Burrowbeck and Nazareth House), and a further apartment block which caters mainly for retirees within 100 metres(Brunton House), as well as another McCarthy and Stone development less than a mile away in the City Centre.

·         Staffing levels--projected as 14FT/9PT jobs when fully operational. However, some posts may be specialist roles, and not recruited from the local market. In terms of operational capacity, 60-80% appears to be the norm for this type of development (see Transport Survey).  At the nearest McCarthy and Stone development (less than 1 mile from this site) there were 11 apartments for sale and several for rent recently. 23 posts could then be an overestimate of the staffing level.

·         Job losses--the gaining of posts should also be offset against the loss of 11FT/PT posts (at the time of the Planning Committee meeting) (plus the potential for more) at the Greaves Hotel, all of which are held by local people. There is a previously documented need for more hotel spaces in Lancaster, which would be likely to yield greater sustainability in terms of jobs than the proposed development. Pubs in the area which have had investment and re-visioning are now thriving. One such (The Pub) projected the potential for 35 staffing posts at the planning stage. In this instance, therefore, the Christie + Co marketing analysis (letter to Chris Watson, 6/12/2012) reflects more the situation of a hotel that suffers from underinvestment, and that has been allowed to get run down, rather than more general market forces.

·         Local Economy With an average age of 83, and a target market of the frail elderly, residents in Extra Care will be unlikely to patronise local shops, including local hairdressing and fast food facilities, because of either their frailty or the availability of in-house provision, or both. Apart from the local Spar, it seems unlikely that the local economy will benefit greatly.

·         Affordability--- Purchase costs are significantly higher than local property market values. (c.£149,000 for a 1 bed flat v. local example of £109.950: £199,000 for a 2 bed flat v. local egs of (£99,950,Greaves area; £120,000, town centre). (Prices seen for Lancaster on the McCarthy & Stone website on 20/05/2012, but not viewable since). Service charges are very high: McCarthy & Stone quote between £95 to £115 per week for a one bed and £125 pw for 2 bed flats. Residents pay own heating, lighting, community charge. Also catering, plus £3.80 per 3-course meal for waitress service. Tailored made personal assistance packages come extra, at “around four times that of a sheltered housing development” (C. Butt letter to A. Drummond 24/08/2012 ).There is also a 1% resale charge.  

`This development is not social housing, and it is not affordable for local people. The Lancaster City Council Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document (2012) Chapter 4, 4.1 (p25) indicates that a key priority for the area is affordable dwellings. There is an annual shortfall of 330 (up from 216) such dwellings, and the document indicates that “the need for affordable housing is acutely high”.  It does not meet the key priority in the Lancaster District Core Strategy (2008), Paras 4.57 and 4.58, of addressing the annual shortfall of  Affordable Dwellings. This build has secured exemption from affordable housing requirements (letter from Chris Butt to Andrew Drummond, 24 August 2012).
Again, therefore, it falls short of making a valid contribution to local sustainability.

 ·         Environment/Heritage---The development cannot meet the LDCS(2008)
requirements as in Section 4 Building Sustainable Communities, viz: it is not:

Table 1 “Capable of being developed without loss of or damage to features of
significant landscape, …or built heritage importance”, nor is it:
 Policy SC1: “ integrated with the character of the landscape…and    creates publicly accessible open space”.
The development would actually remove the currently available publicly accessible open space. See also Section 4 re heritage below.  

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 3. Traffic/Parking issues
Despite the best efforts of the traffic professionals, a range of issues remain largely unresolved. They are unsatisfactory because the location and nature of the site is unsuitable for the traffic demands that would be put on it: 

·         Avoidance of demonstrable harm--lack of a traffic impact assessment for the
A6(especially in relation to kerb build-outs) undermines the claim for the avoidance of demonstrable harm.

Glen Robinson, Senior Engineer (Developer Support) (Letter of 24/10/2012): “The developer has failed to discuss the effect of the development on road safety in the TS(Transport Statement) and as such it can only be assumed that the developer believes that their development will not impact on road safety.” 

This is effectively a disclaimer, not an endorsement of the transport plan’s level of safety, as some have chosen to interpret it as. 

·         Unsuitable topographical location for the elderly because of steeply sloping
Streets, (Brunton Rd and Bridge Rd), which are difficult for frail elderly pedestrians and mobility scooters. Brunton Rd (which has a 1:9 [11%] incline – see Preliminary Services Appraisal on LCC case website, p7) and Ash Grove had to be closed this last winter because of compacted ice. (See Appendix 2/Page1 showing ice conditions on Ash Grove). 

·         Use of pavement to east of A6 (Greaves Rd) instead of crossing Brunton Rd, (as
recommended by Bryan Hall, Transport Survey) .

This is not a safe option.  The pavement on the A6 level east side, (below BVTerrace) is narrow, especially for manoeuvring mobility scooters. Other than getting to/from the bus-stop or the crossing, local people do not walk down there. It is too cramped and dangerous. BVT, above the main road level, is used by pedestrians, but there are 10 steps to ascend so it is unsuitable for mobility scooters..

·         Kerb build-out proposals for Bridge and Brunton Roads (main access routes into West Greaves).
These are not a good solution. Lack of local usage knowledge has lead to some potentially harmful suggestions for resolving crossing and safety problems (principally kerb build-outs). They need modelling in the light of actual local conditions, not least since Bridge Rd is the main access road into West Greaves from both the North and the South. It is also a well used “rat-run” to Ripley School and to the Royal Lancaster Infirmary.
 
Both roads are usually lined with cars, and both are steep. Bridge Rd is already an accident black spot (6 in 5yrs). Cars exiting Bridge Rd to go either north or south, have poor lines of sight because of parking on the A6, and often have to edge out to the centre of the A6 to achieve a sufficient view to enable a manoeuvre. All the side road junctions in this area are curved to give better and safer turning angles. This is important because the major national trunk road is only two lanes wide in this section, and larger vehicles have significant difficulty as it is. Squaring off corners, particularly for Brunton Rd traffic turning north, could impact on traffic safety. 

There appears to have been no traffic impact assessment for theA6, and no assessment of potential future demands, or of emergency measures arising from motorway incidents, on this national trunk road, which is also the main alternative to the M6. If approved, this build would be here for decades. Some future-proofing analysis would be prudent, not least since there is a proposal to build 1600 extra homes in South Lancaster.

·         Traffic movements
Access to and egress from the site by large vehicles is extremely difficult ((See Appendix 2/P3,  photo of vehicle unable to turn into Ash Grove) yet there will be vehicle deliveries to this site 365 days a year. Furthermore, however you calculate the number of vehicular movements per day (92 or 147) these are too many for a narrow street like Ash Grove, where children live (Appendix2/P1), rendering the area as potentially unsafe.  
 
·         On-street parking.
There are statements from the developers (para 5.3 Transport  Statement ; Bryan Hall, 7/12/2012) that residents without permits, and visitors will have to find other on-street parking, but parking is already a problem, and particularly so between 5.00pm and 9.00am, and during University terms. The streets are narrow, most houses are without garages or drives, there is multiple occupancy (student housing), multiple car families (young professionals/students e.g. No. 2 Ash Grove is a 5 car residence), and much commuter parking by school and hospital staff 

·         Permit arrangements
A permit system will enable the site to demonstrate that on-site parking can be managed, but it ignores the impact of the  acknowledged extra parking needs of the visitors to 74 residents, and of the resident non-permit car owners, (and there are bound to be some), beyond this. The existing parking problems of this area will be exacerbated by this build, which will therefore have an adverse impact on the quality of life of existing residents. It would be dishonest and unrealistic not to recognise this.  

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 4. Lack of compliance with national and local conservation and heritage policy
The chronology of the proposal documentation provides clear evidence that the building was designed first, (April 2012) without any regard for heritage considerations, which effectively came as an afterthought. The Heritage Addendum was produced months later (November 2012) following a requirement by the Conservation Officer, who noted that there was: “no discussion of the Conservation Area, of the significance of the heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting, and the proposal’s impact upon that significance in line with NPPF para 128.”(See CO’s memo of 2/11/2012). 

The only discussion relating to heritage/assessment using appropriate expertise (the developer’s architect, Christopher Butterworth, RIBA) by the developer focused on the lack of value of the retention of the Greaves façade, and on the use of natural stone and better quality building materials, instead of the ugly, yellow reconstituted stone, as first proposed, in order to correspond better with the local built environment. On both aspects the developer subsequently acceded to the requirements of the Conservation Team.  

The rest of the Heritage Addendum document is purely descriptive of the local built environment. There are erroneous ascriptions to some of the photographs. There is no attempt to consider or discuss the heritage significance of the conservation area and heritage assets, nor the historic links between them. A map is provided (p4 of Heritage Addendum, see Appendix2/P4), showing that the site lies within 800 metres of two Conservation Areas, Aldcliffe and Greaves, with the Greaves Conservation Area (regarded as a heritage asset) and the Ripley heritage assets only c. 200 metres distant (see map). They are separated from each other by the new build, but there is no attempt to consider either the impact on the Conservation Area(s), or the historical /heritage implications. 

There has, in fact,   been an historic visual link between these two heritage assets since the building of the Ripley Hospital (See copy of photo of construction of same at Appendix2/P5). In the Edwardian era, as Lancastrians were becoming more prosperous, the gentry would promenade in their finery along Belle Vue Terrace taking the air, and enjoying the view towards Ripley Hospital and the coast. This past activity earned BVT the title “The Monkey Rack”. Local people still refer to it by that name even now.                                                    

The Heritage Addendum does not therefore comply with NPPF Section 12: “ LA’s should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting”. The NPPF(2012) elucidates further:
Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”  And comments: “Our historic environment- buildings, landscapes, towns and villages- can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers”.  (NPPF Ministerial Foreword). 

In relation to conservation areas and their surroundings, the Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP,2004, p172) commented: “Many conservation areas rely for their character on the relationship between buildings and spaces and the nature of these spaces. These spaces may be both within and outside the actual boundary of the conservation area” (5.7.20) “When determining any development affecting a conservation area, the City Council will take account of the impact of views into and across the area and the wider landscape setting.”(5.7.21). 

The new draft LDLDP (due for publication in 2014) includes English Heritage Guidance on the preservation of the historical value of areas:
 
“…..the way in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place. This could be illustrative or associative …

(and indicates the importance of)

“Evidential value—the potential of a place to yield evidence about its past activity”.
The proposed build would be within and between the viewing range of two conservation areas and would interrupt a direct line of sight between a conservation area/heritage asset (Greaves, and key heritage assets (Ripley), which have a longstanding historical connection (see photo). 

The erection of a huge, modern urban block on this site will remove the last connections and vestiges of the early Edwardian way of life in this area. It will no longer be possible to yield illustrative or associative evidence about  past people/ activity/aspects of life of the gentry promenading on the Monkey Rack (see Appendix 2/P6), because the original evidential vista down to the Ripley  heritage assets and beyond to the Aldcliffe Conservation Area and Morecambe Bay, which was intrinsic to the promenading activity, will no longer exist. The local historical narrative will become meaningless. It will be irrevocably lost. 

The proposal is also in direct contravention of LDC Policy E35:

“Development proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an unacceptable form of its historic form and layout, open spaces and townscapes will not be permitted.”

 The sheer bulk of the proposed development will completely destroy the heritage value of this area, and will be at odds with both the letter and spirit of the NPPF, the Local Development Plan, and the English Heritage imperatives which the new LDLD Plan intends to adopt (confirmed on 20/05/2013 by relevant Senior Planning Officer). 

The increased urbanisation and loss of openness and heritage vista incurred by this large build, and, in particular, its specific location between the sightlines of the Greaves/ Ripley/Aldcliffe Conservation Areas/Heritage Assets would undoubtedly detract from the visual quality of the area, and would cause demonstrable harm to the heritage and conservation aspects thereof . The proposal is also in breach of national and local policies relating to conservation and heritage as demonstrated above.

The same basic issue is currently being raised at international level, where UNESCO has condemned the development of Elizabeth House in London because of its concerns that several famous views of Westminster will be threatened by a series of skyscrapers. UNESCO may put Westminster on its World Heritage endangered list.
 
English Heritage has commented in this case that “there do not seem to be…agreed constraints in place to ensure that new tall buildings do not impact on important views and other attributes of the property.” Questions are being raised about the protection to UK heritage sites afforded by the NPPF, which critics fear is skewed too heavily in favour of developers.  

Of course there are differences in scale and importance here, but essentially there are not differences of principle.

Environment of conservation area

Similarly there has been no attention given to environmental considerations for BVTerrace as a conservation area in terms of loss of amenity: loss of several hours of sunlight, overshadowing, reduction in natural heat and light levels in homes,(thereby increasing our carbon footprint); also potential environmental damage to buildings and eco-systems: impact on public and private gardens (most trees on BVT have protection orders on them), higher levels of traffic noise and pollution because of the funnel effect of the massing of the building. These could be cumulatively detrimental to the fabric of the houses (as can be seen further north along the A6 at South Rd where there is a similar built-up effect to that of the proposed development), and potentially even to the structure of the elevated terrace over time.  

Appeal:13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 5. Lack of Impact Based Planning re Public Amenities

Adverse impact on amenities, viz: overshadowing, loss of daylight/sunlight ,overbearing presence, loss of privacy, impact of increased noise and pollution through intensification of traffic effects because of funnelling between two large building blocks, failure to meet the 21 metres of separation rule, have been ignored or diminished. 

The  Householder Development Consents Review (2007), not listed as superseded by the NPPF) stresses the importance of impact based planning:

Sections 1.11-1.12:
“1.11 The planning system is underpinned by the concept of “impacts”. If the impact of a proposal is acceptable, then it should proceed; if…not…the proposal should not proceed. Such an approach can be applied equally to large and small development proposals.

1.12 The way in which the planning system deals with proposals….mirrors this approach, encompassing an assessment as to whether a proposed extension could overlook or overshadow neighbouring dwelling houses, or be deemed visually inappropriate or be harmful to highway safety, or has other cumulative impacts, which make it unacceptable.”

P11 1.24 (HDCR) cites as sound examples of good guidance on planning:
·         BRE’s Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, the standard text for assessing overshadowing impacts.
·         Essex Design Guide (2005 version) which enjoys a national reputation for its approach to good design and assessing overlooking impacts
·         Residential Design Guides drawn from a sample of Planning Authorities across England and Wales.
·         P13-14 Sections2.4-2.9 deals with issues of overlooking (loss of privacy)
·         P15-18 Section 2.10-2.19 deal with issues of overshadowing (loss of daylight---tests commonly undertaken on 31 March in order to establish a norm in relation to the position of the sun.
·         P21 Section 2.30: “It is commonly stated that tall, flat roof extensions….. are inappropriate.”
·         Section 1.6 places “THE ONUS ON THE DEVELOPER TO JUSTIFY DEPARTURES FROM THE CODE” 

There has been no significant amelioration of amenity issues in the slight modifications made to the plan, for example: Chapter 5, Section 2.5 (HDCS) Overlooking (Loss of Privacy) indicates: “Our research into local Planning Authorities Householder design guides suggests that 21 metres is the commonest minimum privacy distance”.

The Lancaster District Residential Code (1988, but still current) also indicates at p3,2.17: “There should normally be at least 21 metres between dwellings where windows of habitable rooms face each other, and 12 metres where a habitable room faces onto a wall with no such window; …. The main windows of habitable rooms should not be overshadowed by….two storey gable walls.” (See Appendix 2/P7) 

Despite discussion and “amended” designs, separation distances for Brunton Rd remain at 14 metres and for Ash Grove at 15-17 metres. The closest overshadowing walls facing Ash Grove, which must be at least two/three storeys high, do not have gable roof lines, but flat roofs, which exacerbates even more the loss of daylight. The lowest of the flat roofs is above the height of the Ash Grove roofs (see Appendix 2/P8 and P9). There are also unheeded and unresolved issues to the south of the build in relation to proximity to Mr Cowan’s foundations, to the loss of privacy and light, and to the increase of noise to his offices (See Appendix 2/P7) 

In the various amendments there have been no genuine concessions made to planning policy, no amelioration to public amenities, or to people’s lives, and very little significant amendment to design and layout, despite written and personal representations to the developers. 

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 6. Consultants’ Reports 

There are inadequacies and issues of misinterpretation in relation to some aspects of various consultancies, which have resulted in their being deemed supportive of the development, when, in fact only part of the issue, or in some cases, a different issue, has been commented on . The upshot of this is that either the issues have not been properly addressed, or they have been discounted on slight or erroneous grounds. These are outlined below: 

Impact on the Conservation Area of Increased Traffic noise and Pollution
Legitimate public concerns on these issues were recorded and noted, but were given inadequate assessment and treated dismissively in the Planning Officer’s Report cf 7.19 : 

“The Air Quality and noise impacts have been considered by the developer and assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Service. There are no objections on air quality grounds or noise grounds in relation to traffic impacts, the proximity to the main road or to the implications of building on this site….a concern raised by residents….(that)it would create a funnel effect and cause an increase in noise/pollutants by refection (sic) against the building. This is not a significant reason for opposing the development, particularly given no objection from Environmental Health Officers.”

In fact the SRL Technical Report prepared for McCarthy and Stone clearly states that its recommendations are about protecting the development’s “internal spaces from noise”. There is NO assessment of the impact of the development on the EXTERNAL environment. 

The very brief memo from the EHS in response to the SRL Report, commented largely on site construction impact issues, viz: dust control, burning of wastes, site clearance times, silencing equipment for construction noise control, about which the EH Officer felt there was “significant potential for adverse impact(s) “. 

There is no evidence that EHS was asked to assess the potential increased impact on the noise and pollution on the neighbourhood and the environment by the presence of the new build. It was not the case that EHS had no objections in relation to these specific concerns. They did not express a view, and presumably had not been asked for one.
 
These concerns, which could cumulatively affect the appearance and fabric of the houses in the  Conservation Area, and the amenity value, noise and pollution levels for residents and pedestrians have not therefore been addressed.

Traffic Safety
Mr. Robinson (Lancashire County Council Officer) has effectively issued a disclaimer in relation to traffic safety (Section Three, first bullet point refers, and his letter of 24/10/12). His comment certainly could NOT be taken as unmitigated support of the developer’s proposals re traffic safety.

Conservation/Heritage
The Conservation Team has done some good work in securing better building materials which are more in keeping with the area, and in particular, with the conservation area. It is unfortunate that neither they, nor the Civic Society, have concerned themselves with commenting the specific design of the build beyond the retention of the Greaves façade. Do they actually want a flat roof, zinc cladding and grey aluminium curtain walling in this main heritage gateway to the City for the next 40 years or more? How do zinc and aluminium age over a 40year period? Like so many of the McCarthy & Stone developments (see Appendix 2/P9), it already looks anachronistic.
 
Despite initially requiring that the developers discuss the significance of the heritage assets and their setting,  the wider heritage issues of the impact on the conservation area have not been addressed fully (if you count discussion of the Greaves façade as partial fulfilment).  No issue of significance or contribution to the setting of the conservation heritage asset has been discussed (see Section 4 of this document), nor has this been commented on by the Officers or the Civic Society. In view of this lack of consideration of the full heritage issues, it is difficult to see how the Conservation Team’s Report might be regarded as fully supportive of the development.

Trees
The Tree Protection Officer had no initial objection to the development proposal, subject to conditions (26/09/12).  The amended plans flout the conditions of the Officer by proposing to remove all trees. The Officer has re-iterated her condition, but, de facto, this must be regarded as an objection to the proposal. 

Ground Investigation
The EHS Officer appears to have some issues with the Arc Environmental Desk Top Study Report (Mark Edwards memo to Development Control of 18/09/12). There is no evidence on the website of a response to this. Presumably the issues have therefore not been resolved satisfactorily, and the proposal remains deficient? 

Fire Service Consultation
The Fire Authority letter (14/09/12) to the RPDM Team offered generic advice at that stage, and suggested LA Building Control/Approved inspector and the Fire Service should be consulted at the earliest opportunity. There is no evidence available to indicate that this has occurred. Given the size, location and access issues of the site, it cannot be assumed that there is currently an endorsement in respect of fire safety, especially in view of the frail, elderly nature of the proposed residents of this development.

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 7. Design/site fit 

From the perspective of the developers, doubtless the site fit and design optimise the business profit potential. However, the footprint of this build is too cramped in this location.(See Appendix 2/P10). Making it work is at the expense of adequate separation distances, overshadowing, loss of daylight and privacy etc.. The development is shoehorned into an inadequate space for the mass. Like a cuckoo in a sparrow’s nest, it is too big and steals resources and amenities from its unwilling hosts. 

The flat roofline to the main building is, like the zinc cladding and the grey aluminium curtain walling to the front Greaves link section, out of character with the surrounding Victorian /Edwardian built environment.. The development presents an already anachronistic, boxy, “noughties”(2000 and something) look, and proposes the use of materials which will date quickly, like a number of other McCarthy  &Stone developments (See Appendix 2/P12). From every elevation the design is ugly, blocky, unattractive and with no clear form or line (See Appendix 2/P13) 

The build frontage would present unrelieved urbanisation and a loss of openness in the street scene. The design is poor at the front (the façade is institutional, industrial even, and the massing unwelcoming, the long balcony is tenement –like [See Appendix 2/P11]). Similarly at the north side, where maintaining an already unsuitable building line, (and thereby compounding previous planning faults), is given more priority than the privacy of local residents. There appear to be more side windows in the new build than the present one, and there will be permanent residents with continuous overlooking potential to Brunton Rd inhabiting that build (See Appendix 2/P7). 

In relation to Ash Grove (rear) the blank full building height massing at only 15-17 metres separation is unacceptable. To indicate that the separation distance to Greaves Rd is 37 metres is an irrelevant red herring. Discussion of visually breaking up the massing of the development with the use of  particular materials will not make the several storey high blank wall, which will be the outlook for a number of homes, any more palatable for those families whose daylight will be severely compromised by walls which are higher than their rooflines (See Appendix 2/P8 andP9).

Designing- in separation distances of only 14 metres for Brunton  Rd and 15-17 metres for Ash Grove is at complete variance with national good practice, which is based on 21 metres of separation. The separation distances proposed are not even borderline to the nationally accepted standards. This is not just an issue of privacy. It is also about the amount of daylight/overshadowing /overbearing presence, and outlook there would be. Why should this stealing of amenities be permitted in this day and age, particularly when the benefits to the local community are not costed and obvious? With a new build this is an avoidable situation which, if supported, would leave a very poor legacy for planners of the future.  

It is unreasonable to expect that local residents should accept such poor planning practice with regard to a new build. Similarly, citing precedents of poor planning in the past is no excuse for bad planning in the present or the future. 

Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref: APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents 

Section 8.  Relationship to scale and pattern of existing development in area 

It is the case that there are a few other large residential buildings in the wider Greaves area and smaller blocks of flats. One other building is 5 storey, as is this. But NOTHING else in the area is likely to have the length, cubic capacity or massed presentation of the site in question, nor do existing buildings have the level of close proximity and overbearing presence to neighbouring smaller properties that exist at the Greaves Hotel site. 

All are used as private dwellings without the need for significant external servicing, and the roads to the sides of these buildings are wider, so there are not the same traffic, access or parking problems that are present on the Greaves Hotel site. Most of them fit the character of the area, and do not have those dateable features which conflict with the local heritage context, e.g. grey aluminium curtain walls, zinc cladding and flat roofs. 

Some are evidently examples of previous poor design and planning—overlarge buildings in cramped footprints, use of unsuitable materials. Some existed before the smaller, neighbouring homes were erected.  But replicating the mistakes of the past should be a lesson to us, not a precedent or an excuse for compounding bad practice. It is not a good option for a city which wants to develop and enhance its heritage credentials, not add to its planning problems.  The proposed build, therefore, bears little relationship to the existing development in the area. It has the added disadvantage of being in the middle of two historically linked conservation/heritage asset areas. 

In relation to the immediate vicinity of the site, it is clear from the ARC Environmental Aerial Surveys (See Appendix 2/ P14 and P15) that this huge, impersonal, modern development would be totally at odds with the scale and pattern of the narrow streets and the surrounding community of 19th –early 20th century modest terraced houses. It would, indeed, be a cuckoo in a sparrow’s nest.
 
Appeal: 13/00014/REF
Inspectorate ref:APP/A2335/A/13/2195739
Authors: Greaves Residents

Section 9. Community Response and Local Opposition

Residents’ opposition has shown the development would be at odds with the NPPF (para 61 (Community)) concept of building a “sustainable community” in which planning development would have a “vital role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy inclusive communities”.  There is much community concern because of adverse impacts on amenities, parking and traffic, pollution, noise and heritage. More than 200 people have voiced discontent so far, either by personal letter, (some have made four or more responses, including some direct to McCarthy and Stone), or by signing petitions. Eight residents attended and spoke at the LA Planning Committee Meeting on 7 January 2013, when the proposal was refused consent. There are 105 written responses, reflecting the discontent of 118 individuals, on the Planning Office’s Public Access website. 

McCarthy & Stone’s Community Involvement Summary suggests a far more positive  picture  of its efforts to involve and heed the community than the reality of the community’s experience of dealing with company. A refutation of that summary is included in this submission (See Appendix 3). There were in fact a number of shortcomings: failure to involve BVT residents until January 2012, avoidance of group meeting with BVT residents, ignoring of dissatisfaction of Ash Grove residents after meeting of May 18, emails from residents after 7 February exhibition totally ignored, inaccuracy in use of statistics resulting in inflation of the number of supporters of the development by c.10%, and a reduction of the real percentage of objectors by an unknown amount. 
 
With the exception of the change to building materials and the reduction of windows on the Ash Grove elevations, the amendments to the plans have been negligible. The size and scale of the building (a major concern for residents) has not altered greatly. In fact in the December 2012 amendment two protruding opaque bay windows appeared to have been added to two floors the South end of the building. A professional scrutiny of the amended versions would show how little real change was made. At the last amendment stage the recommendations of the Tree Protection Officer were flouted.

 McCarthy & Stone communicated with the residents via newsletter, not via individual replies to letters or to their questionnaires. On the occasions when there were personal meetings (7 February Exhibition, 18 May meeting with Ash Grove residents) objections were listened to with apparent courtesy, but then completely ignored. They listened, but they did not hear.