Agenda item

Miss H Bareford spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant. A copy of the agent’s representations is filed together with this minute at Appendix 1.

The Committee gave consideration to the report and addendum (as set out at pages 16 - 29 of the agenda and pages 5 - 12 of the agenda update) which asked it to determine a planning application to amend an original planning permission (No. 18/00087/REM) with respect to amended house types, changes to layout and the provision of an additional 32 dwellings.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members acknowledged that, upon the advice of Officers, there were insubstantial material planning grounds upon which a refusal of permission could be framed. This was because the application, and the wider development as a whole, when assessed on its own merits: was deemed acceptable in terms of all National and Local Policy Frameworks; it continued to observe the principles established by the “Design Code” document approved under the original outline permission (No. 13/00403/OUT); the additional effects of the proposed additional 32 dwellings were not deemed to “sufficiently severe” and; the proposed mix of housing would better meet local housing needs, including the provision of affordable housing, in line with the most up-to-date evidence-base, taking into account the change in demographics since the outline permission was granted.

Notwithstanding the above, a number of Members expressed some reluctance to support the grant of planning permission due to the following items of concern:

1.     The lateness of negotiation of the application’s proposals being at such a stage when development had already commenced and was nearing completion, thereby suggesting a lack of openness and transparency on behalf of the applicant in terms of the intended outcome of the final development;

2.     The proposed mix of housing types did not reflect or meet perceived local housing needs, particular in respect of the inclusion of six-bedroom dwellings and the exclusion of bungalow-dwellings into/out of the housing mix;

3.     the lack of affordability of those dwellings earmarked as “affordable” housing;

4.     the perceived net additional effects of the proposed additional 32 dwellings in terms of the heightened impact of and/or upon comparable site density, increased vehicular movements, highway and pedestrian safety and inadequate parking provision in proportion to the revised number of dwellings;

5.     the signposting of the site which incorrectly referred to the “Meadows Estate”;

6.     the delay in installing essential highway infrastructure ahead of the completion of the initial 150 dwelling, in order for the same to be adequately serviced;

7.     the proposals purposely falling short of the requisite number of dwellings in order to trigger developer contributions in order to meet the increasingly critical need for additional education, healthcare and transport provision.

In reaching its decision, the Committee was advised that although most of the conditions carried forward from the original outline permission had been discharged or satisfied, their inclusion reflected the fact that this application amounted to a new planning permission in its own right. As such, a Deed of Variation to the original section 106 agreement was required in order to manage the delivery of the various revised matters. Members were reminded that, irrespective of whether planning permission was granted, there was an extant planning permission and section 106 Agreement with attendant rights and obligations which could not be subjugated.  The Committee was also advised that pre-application discussions with the developer regarding later phases of the development to the south did include provision for education, healthcare and transport provision, and that Officers continued to approach the local Clinical Commissioning Group to secure relevant contributions.

To mitigate other concerns as raised by Members in terms of highway safety, it was further agreed that, by way of condition, a facility was to be installed by the site contractor directing constructions vehicles to use a wheel wash installation and, in the event of mud being tracking on to the highway, that the contractor be responsible for ensuring it was periodically bushed and washed to clear any mud.

It was moved the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

RESOLVED THAT:

(i)       The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans, subject to:

(a)     the prescribed conditions (as amended), including the additional condition requiring the installation of a wheel wash facility on-site and the periodic brushing and washing of the highway to clear any mud that may be tracked thereon to;

(b)     the additional planning conditions and informatives (as set out at paragraph 3 of the addendum and updated from those as recommended in the earlier published report); and

(c)      a Deed of Variation to the original obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as set out at paragraph 4 of the addendum and in addition to those as recommended in the earlier published report);

(ii)     Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Development and Regeneration to agree the final wording of the conditions and minor or non-material amendments to submitted drawings.

Votes For                  9

Votes Against          2

Abstentions             0