Issue - meetings

Proposal

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 25 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a 574sq.m. building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA2016/0101).

Recommendation

Recommendation A:                        That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 25% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, play spaces and open space, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS and public open and play space within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:             That, if requirements on Recommendation                                                            A are      not met, permission be REFUSED

Proposal

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 25 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a 574sq.m. building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA2016/0101) as amended by email received 19/12/2016.

Officers presentation

Officers introduced the application to the Committee explaining that the application had sought outline permission for the development proposal with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access. If outline planning permission had been granted, any details reserved for future consideration would be the subject of future reserved matters application(s).

An earlier application on the site had been rejected by the Committee in June 2016 under reference WA/2016/0101. Reasons for the refusal had included;

·        A failure to demonstrate that the number of dwellings and employment space could be adequately accommodated on site without causing material harm to the visual and residential amenities of future residents. This would have been due to the cramped layout, loss of trees and insufficient car parking.

·        Proposed change of use to the south-eastern section of the site would have constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt. There had been no `very special circumstances` in existence that would have outweighed the harm by way of its inappropriateness.

·        Failed to enter into a legal agreement to secure highway improvements, necessary infrastructure contributions and to secure affordable housing.

Officers explained that the applicant had sought to address the concerns raised by Members and went on to describe the differences between the rejected application and the current proposal which had included;

·        A reduction in the apartment blocks at the front of the site from four to three storey.

·        Dividing the buildings at the front of the site to provide smaller blocks separated by gaps of 2.5 meters to provide views through the site.

·        A reduction in the number of dwellings to up to 100.

·        Amendments to layout providing increased parking provision.

·        Retention of the ambulance station following concerns raised by local residents and councillors its potential loss.

·        Improvements to the site layout.

·        Proposal to infill Green Belt at the south eastern corner of the site removed.

·        Units adjacent to the south western of the site repositioned away from the boundary, and amendments to the Arboricultural Report to ensure the vegetation forming the screening on that boundary was maintained and enhanced.

Moving to the Update Sheet, officers explained that a number of amendments had to be made to the Report. They also provided some further verbal updates including;

·        The applicant had increased the provision of parking on the site by 10 (as set out in email received on 19/12/2016).

·        Bottom of page 44 – the application referred to should be changed to WA/2016/1419.

·        Additional condition 22;

22. Condition

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply impact study shall be carried out and results submitted to and approved in writing by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82