Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed update, an outline is given below:

§         The Highways Agency had issued a holding response pending further information; in particular, further clarification was required regarding the impact on the capacity of the junction with the A465 and a Residential Travel Plan was being sought.

§         The Traffic Manager recommended standard conditions.  He confirmed that Mulberry Close was constructed to an acceptable standard as a means of access to the development, that the internal road layout allowed for appropriate access for refuse and emergency vehicles, that the parking levels were acceptable, that good cycle and pedestrian links were included, and that the proposed traffic calming in Haywood Lane would facilitate safe pedestrian access to the woodland.

§         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) considered that the general layout of the Country Park was acceptable subject to conditions and considered the housing layout to be well considered.  It was felt that improvements could be made to the bridge from Mulberry Close.  The comments of the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust had been assessed and he considered that the scheme represented the right approach to the provision of the Country Park subject to on going management.

§         The Parks and Countryside Manager had confirmed that the public rights of way would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.

§         The Forward Plans Manager had confirmed that the site did not meet the criteria for car-free development.  Furthermore, if appropriate provision for parking was not made, it was likely that problems with on street parking/obstruction would arise.

§         The Strategic Housing Officer had expressed concern that the tenure split of the affordable housing was 60% rented / 40% shared equity and not 75% / 25% as advised previously.  There were ongoing discussions with regard to the location of the affordable units and improvements to the frontages.

§         The Police Crime Risk Manager had emphasised the need for measures to create a safe and sustainable environment, clarification was sought on boundary treatments, and it was considered that the play area would not benefit from natural surveillance as it was situated away from the residential area.

§         The Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust welcomed the proposal but raised concerns regarding the layout of the Country Park and the method of analysis from which the project commenced.

·         Comments had been received from Belmont Rural Parish Council and objections included: the additional housing proposed would extend the developed area towards the pools, create additional traffic and reduce land available for Country Park use; Mulberry Close was considered unsuitable as a main access and would be detrimental to the peaceful rural environment enjoyed by the residents of this area; it was not considered that there was ‘spare capacity’ with regard to road use and it was suggested that the current speed restrictions along the Trunk Road be extended beyond Belmont Abbey; the applicant’s consultation process was not as described; there was no provision for parking for visitors to the Country Park and this would result in visitors parking in the neighbouring streets.

In response to the additional presentations, the Principal Planning Officer commented:

·             It was noted that none of the statutory consultees had raised ‘in principle’ objections.  It was felt that further clarification and appropriate conditions should address the concerns raised by the Highways Agency and the Traffic Manager.  The concerns of the Strategic Housing Manager would require further negotiations in order to strike a balance between the tenure split and the delivery of the Country Park.  The comments of the Police Crime Risk Manager were noted and would be resolved with further clarification.

·             The concerns raised by the Parish Council were acknowledged,  However, the residential development measured 2 hectares, as referred to in Unitary Development Plan, and the remaining 7.8 hectares remained available for recreational use associated with the Country Park.  The remaining concerns related to increased traffic, particularly the impact of the development on Mulberry Close, but no objection had been raised by the Traffic Manager and it was not considered that this issue would warrant refusal of planning permission.

·             The delivery of parking for visitors to the Country Park was the subject of ongoing negotiations.  The recommendation referred to a contribution towards the construction of Country Park parking and a visitor centre which would assist in the plans to deliver this in a location near Waterfield Road / Treago Grove.

·             Comments had not yet been received from the Environment Agency but it was considered unlikely that an ‘in principle’ objection would be forthcoming given their previous involvement through the allocation of the site in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 (UDP).

·             The recommended conditions erroneously omitted reference to the need to achieve level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes: A Step Change in Sustainable Home Building Practice Design dated December 2006.

·             In the light of concerns about parking it was considered expedient to remove permitted development rights for the conversion of garages to habitable accommodation.

·             It was reported that the recommendation would need to refer specifically to the outstanding comments of the Highways Agency and Environment Agency as well as the additional conditions referred to above and any others considered appropriate, in consultation with the Chairman and Local Ward Members.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms. Crooks and Ms. Kemp spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Brockbank spoke in support of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of an e-mail from Councillor GA Powell, a Local Ward Member who was unable to attend the meeting, and summarised the comments.  These included concerns about: the number of questions outstanding; insufficient consideration regarding access / egress to the development and related highway safety issues; the loss of trees and wildlife habitat; the increased numbers of properties from that anticipated in the UDP and loss of land designated for the Country Park; safety considerations in respect of the play area; insufficient consideration regarding access / egress to the Country Park from Haywood Lane and related highway safety issues; the problems with traffic speeds in the locality; and the lack of parking provision for the Country Park.

Councillor PJ Edwards, a Local Ward Member, made a number of points and some of the issues raised are summarised below:

·             He outlined the history of the site and how the Country Park had been a key element in the development brief for Belmont but had not been delivered for various reasons.  He felt it essential that the balance between residential development and public recreation space was restored.

·             He felt it essential that the impact of the development on the residents of Mulberry Close was mitigated through appropriate Traffic Orders and related measures.

·             There had been some flooding associated with the nearby brook and pools and the drainage issues would need to be addressed.

·             Referring to the comments of the Parks and Countryside Section, he stressed the importance of the development of an Interpretation Centre and parking facilities for the Country Park to ensure that visitors did not park in nearby roads and have an unacceptable impact on the locality.  He also emphasised the need for a suitable and safe access to Newton Coppice, he suggested that should be consideration given to the introduction of 20mph speed restrictions on Haywood Lane.

·             He welcomed the proposed removal of permitted development in order to prevent the conversion of garages in order to maintain off street parking levels.

·             He felt that, given the uplift in the number of dwellings allocated in the UDP, further contributions should be sought from the developer.

·             He proposed an amendment to paragraph 11 of the draft Heads of Terms to the effect that if the Council did not for any reason use the contribution sums that, rather than being repaid to the developer, they be used towards the future construction of the Interpretation Centre.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that only a finite amount of funding could be drawn from the development, particularly as the developer would not only be providing 69 dwellings but would also be required to undertake the layout and transfer of the Country Park.  Nevertheless, officers would convey Members’ concerns and suggestions to the applicant as part of ongoing negotiations.  He also advised that the means of access had been evaluated as part of the UDP process.  With regard to comments about the draft Heads of Terms, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the precise sums and issues were still being negotiated, it was established practice for contributions to be repaid to the developer if the sums were not used within 10 years but this could be reviewed as part of ongoing negotiations.

Councillor PA Andrews, speaking on behalf of Councillor H Davies who was unable to attend the meeting, commented on concerns about the use of Mulberry Close as the only access for the development and felt that it would be unsafe to rely on a single access / egress point.  Therefore, she proposed that the application be deferred to enable further consideration to be given to this matter and the other outstanding issues.

Councillor GFM Dawe felt that further consideration should be given to the potential for car-free development, particularly given the concerns about parking and traffic congestion, and commented on the footpath, cycle and bus links to the City.  In response, the Development Control Manager advised that the site did not meet the criteria for a car-free development given its location and the family sized dwellings proposed.

Councillor Edwards asked that, if the application was deferred, that further consideration be given to measures to bring forward parking provision for the Country Park, the potential for Traffic Orders to mitigate the impact of the development on the local road network, and to the issues raised in respect of the draft Heads of Terms.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred pending further investigations, negotiations with the applicant and further information and clarification from statutory consultees and to enable the potential for all or part access from Kingfisher Road to be discussed.