Agenda item

The Planning Manager advised the Committee of the details of the application, which was linked to the previous application, LA04/2019/0081/F.  It sought permission for 21 social/affordable housing units, comprising 17 townhouses and 4 semi-detached dwellings, with car parking, landscaping and associated site and access works. 

            He outlined the key issues which had been considered during the assessment, including the principle of development, the loss of open space, provision of public and private amenity space, impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on residential amenity, impact on existing trees / proposed landscaping, access and parking, drainage and flood risk and waste-water infrastructure.

The Committee was advised that the site was un-zoned ‘whiteland’ within the BUAP 2001 and draft BMAP 2015.  The proposed development would result in the loss of open space, including the bowling green previously located on the site, protected by Policy OS1 of PPS 8.

The Planning Manager explained that permission had been granted in June 2011, under Z/2010/0434/F, on essentially the same site, but that had also included land to the west for a mixed use development including a replacement of the original Maple Leaf club and 21 dwellings. That Members were advised that that permission included conditions requiring the provision of social housing and build out of the replacement social club, which was required to offset the loss of open space. Those conditions were subsequently varied under applications Z/2011/0827/F and Z/2011/0829/F.

            The Committee was advised that LA04/2015/0075/F was granted in February 2016 for modifications to the original scheme for replacement of the Maple Leaf Club and erection of 21 dwellings (Z/2010/0434/F).  The amended scheme reduced the size of the club and amended some of the house types. The Planning Manager explained that Condition 2 prevented occupation of the residential units until the replacement Maple Leaf Club had been erected. Condition 3 required the development to be delivered as social / affordable housing. He outlined to the Committee that it appeared that the main site access and part of the access road between Blocks A and C had already been constructed and that that served the development of 13 houses to the north of the site (LA04/2015/0052/F). Therefore, it was considered that the development had commenced and represented a fall-back position for the developer, albeit that it would require the construction of the replacement social club.  He reported that the current application for 21 social/affordable dwellings was a standalone application for residential development and that the developer did not wish to construct the social club as previously approved.

            He reminded the Committee that it had previously resolved to approve application LA04/2019/0081/F for 12 apartments (social/affordable housing) on the part of the site previously approved for the replacement social club.

The Members were advised that Policy OS2 required public open space to be provided as an integral part of new housing schemes of 25 units or more, and stated that at least 10% of the total site area should be open space in normal circumstances. Whilst the proposal was for 21 dwellings, he advised the Committee that it was being brought forward in combination with the development of the immediately surrounding lands of 13 units and the proposed 12 apartments to the west (46 units in total). The proposal included some minor areas of maintained open space, however, those areas did not amount to 10% and offered limited amenity value. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy OS 2 of PPS 8.

The Committee was also advised that Policy OS1 of PPS 8 stated that development resulting in the loss of existing open space would not be permitted, however, an exception would be allowed where it was clearly shown that redevelopment would bring substantial community benefits that decisively outweighed the loss of the open space. It was considered that the provision of affordable housing did not by itself outweigh the loss of the open space.

            The Planning Manager reminded the Committee that, in resolving to grant planning permission for the 12 apartments to the west (LA04/2019/0081/F), the Committee had taken the view that the relaxation of the requirement to provide a new club to replace the Maple Leaf Club and to off-set the loss of open space from the site could be justified provided that:

1.     the 12 apartments were delivered as affordable housing;

2.     a Financial Developer Contribution of £52,000 was paid to improve off-site open space facilities; and

3.     that the proposed pocket park in front of the apartments was delivered to provide valuable open space to serve not only the proposed 12 apartments but also the surrounding houses, including the extant permissions for 21 dwellings on the application site.

He advised, therefore, in order to be consistent with the Committee’s previous decisions in December 2019, in respect of the 12 apartments on the adjacent site, it was also necessary that the pocket park would be delivered as part of the scheme for 21 dwellings. Otherwise, it would have insufficient open space and there would be insufficient off-set for the loss of the original open space on the site. Moreover, he advised that the £52,000 should also be secured as part of any permission for the 21 dwellings. He explained that that amount was agreed by the Committee in December 2019 but should be increased to allow for inflation. He outlined that an obligation should also secure the temporary treatment of the site if the construction of the 12 apartments was to be delayed or not built.  Subject to those obligations, he outlined that the proposal was considered acceptable having regard to Policies OS 1 and OS 2 of PPS 8.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby the agent had confirmed their agreement to the following obligations, to be secured by way of a Section 76 Planning Agreement:

·       a single payment of £52,000 plus inflationary uplift (Consumer Price Index linked); and

·       the delivery of the 21 dwellings as social/affordable housing.

However, for logistical reasons, the applicant had advised that they were unable to agree to the requirement that the pocket park would be delivered prior to occupation. They advised the Committee that that was due to the following reasons:

·        underneath the site of the pocket park was the main sewer and electrical cable. Access would be required until the full adoption of the sewers;

·        the access for gas connection;

·        the construction of the apartment block would require access for scaffold, plant and piling rig;

·        it was the only area left for welfare facilities; and

·        it would be the last part of construction on the overall site from a practical view.

The Planning Manager advised the Committee that the applicant had stated that they were confident that they would be able to deliver the 12 apartments within that period and at the same time complete the pocket park. However, should that not be possible, it proposed a clause in the Section 76 Agreement to require the delivery of the pocket park within 24 months from occupation of the first dwelling within the 21 dwelling scheme. The pocket park would be managed by Choice Housing Association.

The Planning Manager outlined to the Members that it would be impracticable to deliver the pocket park prior to occupation of the 21 dwellings for the reasons set out by the applicant and therefore, the officer recommendation would be that the pocket park was to be delivered no later than two years from the date of first occupation. A planning obligation would also be required to secure its future management.

On balance, the Committee was advised that it was considered that the proposed development respected the surrounding context and was appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of layout, scale, proportions, massing and appearance of buildings and landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

He explained that minor concerns regarding overlooking between Blocks C and D had been raised, however, given the extant approval on the site and the similar layout, it was considered acceptable. The Member were advised that there were no concerns regarding natural light, outlooking or shadow.

The Committee was asked to note that the Environmental Health Service had raised concerns regarding the level of noise within the external amenity areas of the 4 semi-detached dwellings. However, it had concluded that if the development was desirable and given its urban location, it should not be prohibited on the basis of high external noise levels in some garden areas. Consequently, it had not offered any objections to the proposal.

In terms of private amenity space, each dwelling would have an average provision of approximately 50 square metres.  The Planning Manager explained that there were slight concerns regarding the amenity space provision of some proposed dwellings. However, given that there was an extant approval on the site for a similar layout, it was considered acceptable.

In regards to parking, the proposed development was accessed via Park Avenue. No in-curtilage parking was proposed, however, communal car parking space was proposed within the development. DFI Roads had provided comments on the proposal and had offered no objection, subject to conditions.

The Members were advised that the proposal involved the removal of trees along the Park Avenue boundary.  A tree survey had been submitted and the Council’s Tree Officer had no objection. Furthermore, additional compensatory planting had been proposed which would help to soften the proposal and assist its integration.

The Committee granted approval to the application with conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement to secure the following:

·        provision of the 21 units as affordable housing (social / intermediate housing);

·        the pocket park proposed under LA04/2019/0081/F was to be delivered no later than two years from the date of first occupation of the 21 units;

·        the future management of the pocket park;

·        temporary treatment of the site for 12 apartments if those were delayed or not built out;

·        securing of the £52,000 with inflationary uplift since December 2019 (if it had already been paid in relation to application LA04/2019/0081 then it would not have to be paid twice).

            The Committee further agreed that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions and the Section 76 Planning Agreement.

            (Councillor Hutchinson re-joined the meeting at this point in proceedings)