Agenda item

Proposal

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent granted under WA/2016/1418 for the erection of 100 dwellings (including 17 affordable units) together with the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above together with associated works. In conjunction with application WA/2018/1336 to vary the conditions of the outline consent and application WA/2018/1614 for a new access to the site (as amended by plans received 09/01/2019).

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to conditions 1 - 10, informatives 1 - 4 and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure changes to the outline consent and affordable housing previously approved, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:

That should the necessary legal agreement not be completed within 6 months of the date of the meeting, officers are delegated authority to refuse permission.

Proposal

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent granted under WA/2016/1418 for the erection of 100 dwellings (including 17 affordable units) together with the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above together with associated works. In conjunction with application WA/2018/1336 to vary the conditions of the outline consent and application WA/2018/1614 for a new access to the site (as amended by plans received 09/01/2019).

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and then outlined the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

Officers provided the Committee with further details of the legal agreement that would be required should the Committee resolve to grant permission. A Deed of Variation would be required to secure changes to the affordable housing mix that was previously secured and also a legal agreement to secure the provision of a LEAP pursuant to a parallel planning application. Additionally, the applicant’s viability assessment had been professionally reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Edward Fenner – Objector

Ruth Beard – Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and raised a number of queries relating to the design and layout of the site. The Chairman, Cllr Cole, sought clarification as to whether the lake to the rear of the site would remain available for members of the public to access. Officers confirmed that access to the lake would be maintained, and this was secured as part of the legal agreement.

Cllr Follows was disappointed to note that the layout had changed so significantly from the indicative plans that had been provided at outline stage. He also raised concerns about the viability assessment, however Patrick Arthurs, Deputy Development Manager, responded that there was specific methodology set out in the NPPF for appraising viability assessments.

There was some uncertainty as to whether the affordable housing provision had been reduced, however it was clarified that the 17% affordable housing provision had been agreed at outline, and no reduction as now proposed. The only alteration was to the affordable housing mix.

Several Members raised concerns about the parking provision, which was 4% below guidelines, as well as the additional traffic created by the development. Officers responded that when comparing the proposal with the previous commercial use of the site, there was actually likely to be a reduction in traffic movements.

Cllr Cosser had concerns about the design and layout of the proposal, particularly the three-storey buildings at the road frontage. Cllr Townsend shared these concerns and felt that there could be an issue of overlooking from the balconies to the houses on the opposite side of the road. In response to this, officers suggested that the Committee may wish to impose a condition to require obscure glazing to the balconies.

Cllr Townsend highlighted that the outline permission had required an environmental management plan and was concerned that this may have been missed. Officers clarified that this condition from the outline had not yet been discharged, but  that an application to do had been submitted and would include the required documentation.

In response to further queries from Members, officers confirmed that the proposed LEAP did not infringe on the ancient woodland buffer zone, and that any potential flood risk from the lake had been assessed at outline stage.

The Committee remained concerned about the design and parking layout of the scheme, and therefore it was proposed by Cllr Cosser and seconded by Cllr Follows that determination of the application be deferred to allow the applicant to provide revised designs and layout.

The Chairman then put the motion for deferral to the vote and it was carried with 19 in favour and 3 against. Cllr Peter Clark left the meeting between 9pm and 9.10pm and did not take part in the vote on this application.

Decision

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to enable the applicant to submit revised designs and layout.