Agenda item

Erection of 280 dwellings and associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure (reserved matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following grant of outline planning permission 2/2018/0036/OUT).

The Case Officer provided members with the following update:

·       Typo corrections had been made to pages 3, 20 and 26 of the officer’s report.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members, as well as highlighting that the application which was before members was a reserved matter application which followed the grant of an outline application which allowed for a local centre for community uses. Details of the previous approved plans were discussed. Photographs of the layout scheme, street scene elevations, illustrative loop roads and masterplans were shown. Members were shown the strategic allocation plan as well as the approved site plan for a 34 dwelling proposal which was located adjacent to the site. Details of affordable housing, building heights, parking strategies and refuse collection were provided.

The Case Officer also referred to the Materials Plan, Character Area Details, and the Landscape Masterplan. In addition to this, members were also informed of the biodiversity and compensation measures which included the establishment of hedgerows, biodiversity corridors and the installation of bat and bird boxes. The presentation showed images as to where these would be allocated across the site. Consideration had been undertaken regarding the lighting proposal in relation to bats, residential immunity space and footpath networks. Additional improvements such as additional parking and street planting had also been made. The development would not have led to any material harm to residential amenity. It was acceptable in terms of scale, layout, appearance, and landscaping. There were no material considerations which would warrant refusal; therefore, the officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Mr Moore addressed the committee and informed members that he owned a contracting business which backed onto the development. He had no objections to the proposal, however, was concerned regarding the noise of a working yard to future residents. Mr Moore felt as though the inclusion of acoustic fencing or strategic planting would mitigate noise impacts to avoid future problems between residents and workers.

The agent addressed the committee and highlighted that the proposal was for residential use and had complied with the Section 106 agreement. He discussed the location of the units and the financial incentives which had been offered by the applicant. Praising their delivery of affordable housing on the proposed site and others. Mr Ruddock also responded to comments made by Environmental Health Officers and also discussed separation distances, the urban design and vegetation. The agent thanked the officers for their work and hoped members would support the recommendation to support the proposal.

Members questions and comments

·       Questions regarding the inclusion of energy efficient resources such as solar panels and electric car charging points. Members felt that this was a missed opportunity and hoped future developers would consider this when making further applications.

·       Cllr Jespersen referred to paragraph 16.5 of The Case Officer’s report and noted the comments made by the Housing Enabling Team regarding the large number of flats and 2-bedroom provision. She felt it would be useful to note that the acceptability of this had been explained by officers previously and it was only relevant to the proposed site as it was part of a much larger scheme.

·       Confirmation regarding the implementation of hedging and fencing.

·       Questions regarding affordable unit accessibility and clarification regarding the acoustic design statement.

·       Members were pleased with the inclusion of affordable housing and praised the well-designed proposal which included landscaping and open design.

·       Clarification regarding flood risk management.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Rideout, and seconded by Cllr Val Pothecry.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.