Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of two applications – an outline planning application for residential development of circa 200 dwellings and associated landscaping – Application 13/04148/OT and an associated application for laying out of new access road from Cookridge Drive – Application 14/00190/FU

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this matter, the Head of Planning Services, Martin Sellens, withdrew from the meeting

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an application for residential development on a 9.9 hectare PAS site and the creation of a second access point over Green Belt land.  An update to the submitted report had been circulated prior to the meeting and had been published on the Council’s website

  Officers presented the report and outlined the proposals, including the information contained in the update report

  The indicative masterplan was shown which indicated the potential for 200 dwellings of semi-detached and detached type, with 2 – 2 and a half storeys in height

  The POS proposals were outlined with Members being informed that the flood attenuation measures did not form part of the POS calculations for the site

  How the site related to the criteria set by Executive Board in March 2013 for the early release of selected PAS sites was explained.  Whilst accessibility had been an issue, the proposed second access route from Cookridge Drive would broadly meet the access criteria, with Officers being of the view that in principle, the site complied with the Interim Housing Policy, however there were other constraints associated with the site, these being drainage issues and the impact of the creation of the second access which would result in the loss of protected trees and a designated UK BAP Priority Habitat and would impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and the objective of preventing encroachment into the Green Belt  On this matter, Members were informed that a clause in the NPPF indicated that certain forms of development could be considered not to be inappropriate development if they did not impact on the openness of the Green Belt, one of these being engineering operations, and that the means of access could be defined in this way

  In terms of the Section 106 package, this was outlined as set out in the report before Panel

  Members then heard from the Group Engineer in the Council’s Flood Risk Management Team who informed the Panel that initial issues with the flood modelling had been raised and that further work by the applicant’s flood risk consultants had shown it was possible to locate the attenuation ponds outside the floodplain.  However, the south east corner of the site was particularly boggy and that the applicant had been asked to carry out further work to determine the cause of this, although this was an issue which would need to be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage

  Members discussed the report and commented on the report with the key issues being:

·  the Council’s 5 year land supply and the importance of this when considering applications.  A brief discussion took place on the interpretation of the 5 year land supply, as set out in the Officer’s report

·  floodrisk and drainage and that these were two separate issues; the need to establish where the water on the south east corner of the site was coming from and the possibility that this could be a deep seated problem

·  that consideration of a position statement on the proposals was premature until there was certainty about the waterlogged part of the site

·  access arrangements; the extent of development possible from a single access point; that a second access point was critical and that the proposed location for this could be considered as encroachment into the Green Belt.  The Transport Development Services Manager stated that whilst there was not necessarily an issue with the total number of dwellings proposed, it was about the nature of the existing access, i.e. a residential road and therefore Officers had sought an additional access to service the development, albeit that an access from Cookridge Drive was not ideal and that further comments were awaited from colleagues in Highways

·  the possibility of taking an access lower down, through the acquisition and demolition of a property.  Members were informed that the applicant had submitted legal and viability information on this aspect

·  education provision

·  the extent of development in the boggy part of the site.  Members were informed that the indicative plan showed 30-40 dwellings in that location

·  the cumulative impact of the proposals

·  the difficult decisions Plans Panels had to take

In addressing the specific questions raised in the submitted report and

an additional question in the supplementary document, the Panel provided the following responses:

·  on whether Members had any concerns regarding the principle of development, the Panel indicated that it had and required certainty on the issue of drainage and what was causing part of the site to be wet and that the outcome of this could affect the layout and number of dwellings the site might be able to accommodate.  In the event that Members were satisfied about the drainage issues, it was likely that the principle of development would have to be acknowledged, although at this stage, the application was considered to be premature without knowing the drainage details

·  regarding the proposed access arrangements and highways, that the loss of woods,TPO trees, a BAP Priority Habitat and Green Belt land to accommodate a second access was not supported.  The suggestion of an adopted cycleway and footpath however, could be supported

·  regarding the sustainability or capacity of the site, to note Members’ comments on these matters

·  in respect of the emerging Section 106 package, to note that the education contribution complied with policy but that further information was required on the number of places this would provide and at which schools

·  concerning the impact of the proposed access road from Cookridge Drive upon the openness of the Green Belt and whether the creation of an access road in this location would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, the Panel considered that it would

·  on the issue of further comments at this stage, the matter of the interpretation of the 5 year land supply was raised again.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that he did not accept this was being misinterpreted by Officers but stated that further clarification could be provided

RESOLVED- To note the report, the presentation and the comments

now made

Following consideration of this matter, the Head of Planning Services

resumed his seat in the meeting