Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of up to 125 dwellings together with public parkland with mixed use including orchard, food growing and wildlife habitat and associated works (details pursuant to WA/2016/0848) (as amplified and amended by Construction Environmental Management Plan received 13/04/2016; Appendix D of Sustainable Drainage Plan rec’d 14/04/2016; Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, plans, email, accommodation schedule, transport statement rec’d 27/06/2016; Bedroom size schedule rec’d 11/08/2016; plans received 18/08/2016 and 19/08/2016 and plans received 13/10/2016, 14/10/2016 and 20/10/2016) 

Recommendation

That, subject to the consideration of any further representations and consultation responses, the Reserved Matters be AGREED subject to conditions 1-20 and informatives 1-5 in the agenda report.

Proposal

Erection of up to 125 dwellings together with public parkland with mixed use including orchard, food growing and wildlife habitat and associated works (details pursuant to WA/2016/0848) (as amplified and amended by Construction Environmental Management Plan received 13/04/2016; Appendix D of Sustainable Drainage Plan rec’d 14/04/2016; Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, plans, email, accommodation schedule, transport statement rec’d 27/06/2016; Bedroom size schedule rec’d 11/08/2016; plans received 18/08/2016 and 19/08/2016 and plans received 13/10/2016, 14/10/2016 and 20/10/2016) 

Officers began their presentation with a brief outline of the background. The application sought the approval for reserved matters following the outline approval of WA/2014/1038 which had subsequently been varied by way of a section 73 variation of condition application (WA/2016/0848) which effectively approved the principle of up to 125 dwellings on the application site. As such, the principle of development for housing had been approved and was not a matter to be considered at the meeting.

The matters which Members were being asked to consider were those reserved at outline stage including access, appearance, scale, landscaping, and the layout of the proposed development. Following amendments sought after the deferral of the application by the Committee on the 14 September 2016, the Committee were further considering those changes.

In terms of matters relating to drainage, officers reiterated that at outline stage, Thames Water had concluded that there was not capacity in the network to accommodate the proposed development and required an impact study to be undertaken to determine how foul flows from the development could be managed. Members accepted a Grampian style condition which prevented any development commencing until full details of the on and off site foul drainage works had been agreed.

These conditions remained on the outline permission which must be read in conjunction with the reserved matters application and therefore the conditions did not need to be re-applied.

The applicants had been undertaking modelling work and completed a capacity check. That information had been submitted as part of the information for the Council to consider and the developer believed that there was capacity in the network to link into the sewage system. This had not been formally discharged but it was with the Council and the information had been provided to Thames Water to finalise and agree.

As for surface water drainage, the Local Flood Authority were satisfied that the requirements under the outline approval had been met and that the surface water drainage design had already been discharged formally. However, further conditions had been applied to secure the final detailed drainage and management requirements as set out in the Report. As such, those matters were not for determination at the meeting.

In addition, the matter of the impact on water quality and compliance with the water framework directive was considered at the outline stage and accepted by the Committee.

Moving on to the detail of the application, officers explained that the application had been deferred at the meeting on 14 September 2016 following a number of concerns raised by residents and the Committee including:

-the scale, design and height of the proposed apartment buildings; and

-the provision of the parking court on the south east edge of the site opposite Copse Edge.

In response, the developer had made several amendments to the proposed scheme. A revised layout, elevations and floorplans had been submitted in respect of the apartment buildings and the parking court opposite Copse Edge had been removed and replaced with an area of open public space. Additionally, the five affordable two-storey units (units 27 to 31 on the revised layout plan) had been moved west in order to increase the separation of those dwellings to the bungalows at Copse Edge. An additional bungalow had been located on the previous position of the terraced units.

The Committee were disappointed that the mix of affordable dwellings now proposed would be 50:50 shared ownership and social rented rather than the 76% rented and 24% shared ownership as indicated at outline stage. They were pleased however that the total number of affordable homes remained the same as at outline stage, 40%.

The access to the site from Amletts Lane was another concern expressed by Members with many commenting on how they felt it to be unsafe and unable to accommodate the increase in traffic movements that would result from the development. Members noted that St. Josephs school for children with learning disabilities was located on Amletts Lane and felt that construction traffic should be restricted so that it did not occur during school opening and closing times. Officers responded that the County Highway Authority was considering restrictions and invited Members to attend a meeting with officers to discuss this further.

A reduction in the number of opportunities provided for self-build was cited as an additional concern as was the potential cumulative impact and the risk of future development in the same area. Protection of the buffer zones was also considered important and Members were disappointed that the allotment space indicated at outline stage, and that acted as a buffer zone, had been reduced.

Some Members agreed that they had reservations about the proposal but that they were where they were and that the developer had made the changes requested.

Decision

RESOLVED that, subject to conditions 1 to 17 and 20 plus informatives 1 to 5 as set out on pages 124 to 132 of the Report and amended conditions 18 and 19 as amended by the Joint Planning Committee and as set out below, Reserved Matters be AGREED

Cllr Stewart Stennett asked that his objection to the proposal be noted in these Minutes.

Amended Conditions

18. Condition

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no outbuildings or alteration or extension to the dwellings hereby permitted, as defined within Part 1 of Schedule 2, Classes A, B, C and E inclusive of that order, shall be carried out on the site without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interest of the character and amenity of the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

19. Condition

The garages hereby permitted shall not be used for any other purpose, other than for storage and/or parking of vehicles associated with the respective premises as a dwelling house.

Reason

In the interest of the character and amenity of the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

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:

Mrs Liz Townsend - Opponent

Mr Gary Worsfold - Agent