In August this year McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles submitted a planning request to Havant Borough Council, McCarthy & Stone wished to demolish Purbrook’s 150 year old Vicarage and build 42 retirement flats.
Following our coverage of the demolition of Swiss Cottage, a reader from Purbrook contacted us and asked us to highlight the pending demolition of the Vicarage to residents.
Thirty residents responded to Havant Borough Council’s planning department. They cited reasons such as loss of local jobs, access issues, and loss of local heritage. Well done to you all, surely this must be a record number of comments submitted to HBC!
“Round 1” of the Havant Borough Council vs. McCarthy & Stone battle has resulted in a verdict Planning Permission denied; Purbrook’s 150 year old Vicarage and the businesses on this site are safe, for now.
The response from Havant Borough Council, which can also be found on their planning portal, is as follows:
Decision: Refuse perm/consent / refuse lawfulness
1) The proposed development would lead to the loss of existing employment uses on the site including Class B uses. These uses make a valuable contribution to the local economy providing employment and services to the community. In the Local Planning Authorities opinion it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the site is not fit for purpose or financially unviable for B use class employment, or other types of economic development, in particular it is not satisfied that a suitable comprehensive marketing exercise has been carried out. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policies CS2 and DM3 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2) In the absence of binding arrangements for the provision of on site affordable housing or alternatively an acceptable contribution in lieu of on site provision the proposal fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing in the interests of creating mixed communities and responding to housing need. Furthermore the financial contribution offered does not meet the assessed contribution requirement and in the absence of independent third party review and viability testing is considered unacceptable. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy CS9 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, the adopted Havant Borough Council Housing SPD July 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
3) The proposal, without completion of the appropriate binding arrangements to secure a contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Project, is contrary to the Council’s Policy on contributions towards measures of mitigation adopted by the Local Planning Authority. These seek to ensure that the provision is made from new development towards mitigating against increasing recreational pressure on the Solent SPA. The development is therefore contrary to policies CS11 and CS21 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and Policy DM24 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
4) On the basis of the information provided and in the absence of binding arrangements necessary to secure the alterations to the surrounding highway network as anticipated in the submitted Transport Assessment and shown on the proposed plans, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the access and highway works associated with the London Road access and the parking spaces on Stakes Road would not result in harm to the amenity and safety of users of the highway. The proposal is therefore contrary to the policies CS16, CS20 and DM11 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
The next steps for the developer could be to:
- Issue an appeal against the planning decision
- Issue a modified planning request
- Walk away
Well done HBC, and congratulations have to be in order for the case officer, Rachael, and her team.