Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee. Members’ and attention was drawn to the Addendum which included comments from Environmental Health and the Lead Local Flood Authority. Members were reminded that outline planning permission was granted earlier in 2019 by the Committee with all matters reserved except access, which would be from Devon Way and Goodwood Avenue. The Section 106 Legal Agreement for the outline permission had secured 35% affordable housing on site as well as financial contributions for education, healthcare and neighbouring open space. It was explained that the developer had submitted a duplicate reserved maters application and therefore the Committee Report includes a summary of the neighbour objections to the duplicate application. The proposal comprised a mix of 2 storey houses and maisonettes, with a total of 46 affordable units proposed.   The properties would be outward facing and 2 parking spaces would be provided per dwellinghouse. It was noted that the Local Highway Authority had not raised any objections to the application.

Councillor Hallam, on behalf of local residents, spoke against the application and commented that residents welcomed the removal of flats and the introduction of maisonettes but noted that surrounding properties was characterised by bungalows and that bungalows would help traffic as they are generally served by fewer cars than houses.

In response to questions, Councillor Hallam stated that there had been widespread support when the plans indicated that bungalows might be built on the site. He indicated that there was already an issue with people parking in the area and walking to the nearby industrial estate; more housing would compound the parking and traffic problems.

Michel Kerrou, a local resident, spoke against the application and commented that the plans were too ambitious and on too small a plot of land resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development offered no community benefits. He suggested that hedgerows would make a better boundary than what was proposed and that the development would have an urban edge, with no buffer zones and result in a net loss of biodiversity. Also development would be parking dominated.  Mr Kerrou noted that a very similar application was withdrawn in 2006 on grounds of overdevelopment and inadequate visitor parking.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there were 51 visitor spaces proposed across the development and further confirmed that Condition 5 related to landscaping and would allow details of boundary planting to be secured.

Responding to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that construction works would be controlled by a condition pursuant to the outline planning permission but that concerns relating to construction vehicles and school drop off/pick up times would be raised with the developer. He confirmed that there was no specific policy requiring the provision of homes for the elderly on this site. He further confirmed that there were slight design differences between the private market and affordable properties but that they shared common design features. He advised Members that the indicative layout plans in the previous outline planning application were merely an indication of what could, not would, be built on the site.  Also, it was highlighted that the back to back separation distances to the bungalows on Druids Way would generally be at least 21 metres, but that there were a couple of instances where existing properties benefitted from conservatory additions that this would reduce to some 19 metres.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.