Agenda item

Demolition of existing hotel, erection of 23 dwellings, formation of new public open space, extension to existing car park, erection of Café and WC block and associated landscaping, drainage and highway works (amended plans and documents) (revised information) (additional information), Lee Bay Hotel, Lee, Ilfracombe, EX34 8LR.

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously – now appended).

The Lead Planning Officer (North) reported the receipt of a late letter from the agent Planningsphere on 15^th April 2019 suggesting that the applicant would accept a committee resolution to grant permission for an alternative 17 unit scheme which removed the upper building.  The agent had also submitted a revised site plan.  A copy of the letter had been circulated to the Committee via email and tabled.  He read paragraph 3 headed “application determination considerations” of the letter to the Committee.  He reported the receipt of additional letters received since the publication of the agenda, however these did not raise any additional issues. 

Paul Scarrott (objector), Martha Scarrott (objector), David Biggerstaff (objector), Alan Bannister (objector), Pat Coates (objector), Trevor Greaves (objector), Daniel Lugsden (applicant’s architect) and Chris Beaver (agent) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Meadlarkin (Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

In response to a question, the Lead Planning Officer advised that the Committee would be unable to make a decision on the suggested revised scheme reducing the number of units to 17, as the applicant would be required to submit revised plans and documents which would then be subject to consultation with statutory consultees and the public.

In response to a question, the Conservation Officer outlined her concerns about the impact of the proposal on heritage assets as detailed within the consultation response in the report. 

In response to questions, Lionel Shelley, Development Viability Lead from Plymouth City Council advised that he had been appointed to provide an independent viability review of the applicant’s scheme.  The applicant had since decided to undertake a review of his review.  It had been concluded that a scheme for 21 units was viable.  There had been a difference of opinion with the applicant in relation to the suggested reduction in the scheme to 17 units, as he considered that the sales evidence provided by the applicant was incorrect and that the construction costs were more expensive than expected.  However, based on these figures he was of the opinion that a 17 unit scheme would also be viable and would produce a profit.  The provision of affordable housing on the site would result in the scheme becoming less viable particularly if included within a 17 unit scheme.

In response to a question regarding Vacant Building Credit, the Lead Planning Officer referred the Committee to the comments detailed on pages 54 to 55 of the report.  There was a clear intention by the owner to redevelop the site as planning applications had been submitted.  Legal advice had been sought in 2016 in relation to whether the building was an “abandoned building”.  It was considered that the building had not been abandoned.  Supplementary Planning  Guidance had not been produced for the site.  The application included the demolition of the building, therefore a vacant credit would be received.

The Head of Place advised that the production of Supplementary Planning Guidance would take approximately 12-18 months before adoption.  It would be subject to a robust and rigorous process in consultation with the owner, agent and interested parties.  He suggested that a Development Brief may be more appropriate as it would achieve the same outcomes as it would capture joint aspirations for the site, however would be produced in a shorter timescale.