Agenda item

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee approves the reserved matters application subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered a reserved matters application for residential development of up to 120 dwellings seeking approval for landscaping, layout, scale and appearance at University Park Development, Bromyard Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan.

Report/Background/Late papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to amendments required to the S106 Agreement in respect of the Education Contributions, resulting in a revised recommendation for the officer’s report identified in paragraph 7 of the late paper.

The Interim Head of Development Management also drew the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the late paper and confirmed that the definition of SEND is Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.  He also confirmed that the proposals are for 100% affordable housing and include a mix of affordable housing tenures, although the S106 Agreement only binds the applicant to provide 30%.

Committee Members were also provided with a sheet on FAQ’s related to outline planning applications and reserved matters submissions for information.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

The Interim Head of Development Management referred Committee Members to the outline planning permission indicative masterplan at figure 2 in the report and to the proposed site plan at figure 3.  The application was supported  by a proposed landscaping scheme incorporating green infrastructure across a large portion of the site.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

·         The Interim Head of Development Management responded to points of clarification on the landscaping, biodiversity and the management of open spaces on the site.  He made reference to the biodiversity net gain and the fact that there is new legislation being progressed.  There was also to be a management plan submitted which would identify how the open spaces would be managed and safeguarded.  It was pointed out that any change to biodiversity or open space a planning application would need to be submitted.

·         In response to questions from Committee Members on the positioning of dropped kerbs, non-provision of south access road footpath and the provision of street lighting, the County Council Highway Authority representative stated that although the intention was for the roads to be built to an adoptable standard the roads would not be subject to a Section 38 agreement as they do not connect to an adopted highway. Oak View is not currently adopted and the internal roads would remain private until such time as the situation has changed.  She further explained that the developers cannot be forced to offer the road for adoption.

·         Noting the concerns of Members the Chair asked that the County Council Highway Authority representative liaise with the developers over the concerns raised, which was agreed but she could not give assurances at this time.

·         It was noted that solar panels were not referred to in the report but the Interim Head of Development Management did confirm that there were solar panels on the site as part of the proposals although not shown on the elevation floor plans.

·         As requested the location of the play area on the site was shown on the powerpoint presentation and the Interim Head of Development Management identified the type of play equipment when asked.  In referring to the late paper at paragraph 4 it was questioned why the secondary SEND was shown as nil, it was confirmed that the County Council Education assesses this and provides the figures and not the developer.

·         Noting that parking is included in the design, Members asked whether electric vehicle points were to be provided.  The County Council Highway Authority representative confirmed that as part of the outline permission all dwellings would have them.

·         As a point of clarification it was confirmed that seating was provided around the play area but not the communal areas.  It was asked whether this could be increased, the Interim Head of Development Management agreed to ask for details of further seating to come forward.

·         Although welcoming the affordable housing, concerns were raised that the householders would be burdened with maintenance costs if the roads are not adopted. The Legal Team Manager responded by saying that the developer is a registered provider and that the rent of affordable housing is capped at a rate set by Homes England and the developer would not be able increase the rent on some of the types of tenures, although shared ownership properties may have to contribute.

A proposal to approve the application had been made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed as follows:

For – 9

Against – 0

Abstentions - 0

RESOLVED: That the Committee

1.      approve the reserved matters application subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report; and

2.      delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance to vary the Section 106 Agreement dated 11^th March 2021 to reflect the revised calculation formula for the Education Contribution as detailed in the late paper.