Agenda item

Erection of 107 No. dwellings & associated works, including the formation of access, landscape & ecological enhancements.

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. The presentation highlighted the requirement for a new site access, outlining a new junction arrangement. The Case Officer highlighted the different sections of the proposed site with the inclusion of images looking towards the site as well as proposed street scenes and elevations, noting that it was on a gradient. Members were also informed of additional tree and shrub plantation, ecological enhancements and landscape buffering between the proposed site and heritage assets. Comments made by Highways had been highlighted in the report in which the Case Officer discussed the reconfiguration of cycle pedestrian routes. The presentation also identified the level crossing which neighboured the site as well as highlighting the percentage of affordable housing. The officer’s recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission subject to consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement signed within six months of a Committee resolution to grant. If the S106 is not signed within that time period, then the application shall be refused unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Head of Planning.

Mr Savage (Transport Development Manager) discussed the traffic calming measures and traffic generation, highlighting both morning and evening peaks. He explained to members that the site was low traffic generating and had sufficient width for passing construction vehicles. The Transport Development Manager drew members attention to the proposed site access as well as visibility. A construction management plan had been conducted and he was satisfied by improvements which were deliverable and appropriate to the proposal.

Public Participation

Mr Absen addressed the committee and noted that development was needed in the area, however he was concerned regarding the construction period as well as the addition of vehicular movements and how this would have negatively impacted local residents. Mr Absen also discussed concerns regarding the loss of green land as the site was currently enjoyed by residents.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding construction times and site access.
• Questions regarding ecological considerations on site.
• Confirmation on adoptive areas on the proposed site.
• Comments regarding preferences of the inclusion of single or two storey preferences as three storey dwellings could be intrusive.
• Members were disappointed to see a planning application before the number of affordable housings had been agreed.
• Referenced paragraph 16.8 of the officer’s report – concerns regarding dwellings which had noted the minimum living space requirements.
• Reassurance regarding the level of risk to the general public using the level crossing.
• Noise pollution mitigation.
• Questions regarding sewage works and nutrient neutrality.
• Surface and wastewater mitigation.
• Accessibility for wheelchair users.
• Members were pleased to see the inclusion of electric car charging points.
• Potential for affordable housing was high and the design of the proposal was a good standard. 
• Clarification regarding the maintenance of plot 5.
• Members requested an informative note to be added to the minutes which highlights their disappointment regarding the consideration of houses not meeting housing standards being included within affordable housing.
• Queried whether permitted development rights should be removed for Plot 75 to prevent unwelcome enlargements which could impact harmfully upon the setting of the adjacent listed building (Maxgate).

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 Rory Major, and seconded by Cllr Sherry Jespersen subject to additional conditions of limited permitted development rights for Plot 75.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to the additional condition of limited permitted development rights for Plot 75.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.