Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to seek views of Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the draft Dunsfold Park Garden Village (DPGV) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  These views will then be fed through to the which will be asked to authorise a public consultation on the draft SPD.

The long-term objective (circa February 2022), is that the SPD is adopted as a material planning consideration to be taken into account when determining future planning applications associated with the site and guiding the discharge of the masterplan condition associated with the outline planning application.

Recommendation

Overview and Scrutiny are requested to make observations and recommendations to the Executive on the proposed SPD.

The Head of Planning & Economic Development gave a brief introduction to the committee, explaining the background to the Dunsfold Park development and the reasons for now producing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Given the recent change in ownership of the site, the SPD would support the site specific policies in the Local Plan, set out the expectations and vision for the site given its garden village status, and give clear guidance around a masterplan framework.

Alistair McDonald and Mark Leitner-Murphy (Allies and Morrison LLP) presented the draft Dunsfold Park Garden Village SPD, outlining the context, the Masterplan framework, site-wide design codes and built character areas design guidance.

Following the presentation the committee considered the content of the SPD and sought clarification on a number of points. The committee noted that whilst the current planning permission was for 1,800 dwellings, the SPD was in the context of the Local Plan Site Allocation for up to 2,600 dwellings to ensure that it created a vision that covered the ambition for the entire site. The committee also noted that the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) screening report concluded that the SPD would not alter the amount or type of development to be delivered on the site compared to the policies in the Local Plan Part 1, and the adoption of the SPD would not give rise to likely significant effects on the protected sites listed, and an Appropriate Assessment was not required.

Cllr Hyman spoke on this item and challenged the conclusion of the HRA screening report which in his opinion was incorrect.

Following concerns raised by Cllr Hyman regarding the accuracy of aspects of the report, the Committee RESOLVED to recommend that the report receive an additional proofread and be checked for factual and legal accuracy. Cllr Hyman agreed to forward details of his concerns by email.

The committee was broadly in support of the draft SPD and RESOLVED to recommend it to the Executive to proceed to consultation, subject to the Executive giving consideration to the following observations and suggestions from individual committee members:

·                the inclusion of a glossary of terms and abbreviations would be helpful for readers of the document.

·                clearer identification of the village centre car park, car free zones, and pedestrian-priority zones.

·                there should be design coherence across the development, reflective of the local area.

·                caution against reducing private amenity space (gardens) because of availability of shared green open space; private amenity space is important.

·                Countryside stewardship requirements to be clarified re active management of woodland, protection of ancient woodland, landscape management. Responsibility for these should be transferred to the Community Trust.

·                landscaping should include mature trees as part of planting schemes.

·                design should be sensitive to and accepting of wildlife.

·                clarify that in addition to shared EV charging facilities, individual dwellings will have their own charging facilities as part of planning permission conditions.

·                Concern about the lack of recognition of the location of Dunsfold Park in relation to Alfold parish and village. The document should recognise the potential for both spill over benefits and harms.

·                Concern at potential traffic impacts off-site not recognised in the SPD, and highway safety at the Compasses Bridge route to the Alfold Crossways and the village as a whole. Which contradicts the importance for the new road being built onto the A281.

·                The previously mooted inclusion of a museum would provide a valuable amenity for the village. This has potentially been included as a condition requiring a memorial to the history of Dunsfold Aerodrome.

·                listed buildings to be preserved and integrated into the new development.

·                Maximum building height should be lowered – 3 storeys would be more appropriate rather than 4.

·                All parking provided should be provide for access by people with disabilities. There should be a recognition that disability ca be unpredictable and unforeseeable.

·                In light of other developments which have recently been approved, which are still experiencing flooding, SUDS and flood mitigation need to be addressed.

·                The need for good quality and affordable public transport provision should be emphasised within the vision.