Site for residential development of up to 60 houses.

Officers were authorised to grant outline planning permission in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, and were required to report the detailed application for reserved matters to the Committee for determination.

(Site for residential development of up to 60 houses.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He elaborated in particular on the land drainage proposals.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AW Johnson, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had identified that the remaining housing need identified for the village within the draft core strategy was now fewer than 50 houses.  However, the proposed development was for up to 60 houses and was too large.  This was his principal concern about the development, although he would also have liked more detail to have been provided.

·         He acknowledged officers comments that concerns about flooding could be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the proposed size of the development noting that the Parish Council had suggested that the site, at a maximum, could accommodate 30 houses. In addition there was concern about the ability of facilities in Cradley to cope with a development of the size proposed.  Existing facilities including the school and Dr’s Surgery appeared to be at capacity.  The village post office had closed.

·         The Development Manager commented that Cradley was identified as a main settlement in the Unitary Development Plan and was identified in the draft core strategy as a village where there would be the main focus for growth.  A development of up to 60 houses was of an acceptable size and the village did have facilities.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the proposal was for up to 60 houses and it was possible that if there were constraints on the site the size of the development could be reduced.  However, a development of up to 60 dwellings was acceptable.  A development of 25 houses per hectare was not a high density.  Given the absence of a five year housing land supply he questioned whether this could be sustained as a ground for refusal of the application.  If at the reserved matters stage the applicant proposed a lower number of houses this could be accommodated.

·         The robustness of the provision in the S106 agreement for maintenance of the on-site Public Open Space (POS) was questioned as the proposed location of the POS. The Principal Planning Officer commented that the provision of POS would be subject to detailed discussions with the applicant.  The proposal was to provide the POS on the site.  The Council did not have the resources to adopt POS.  The location of the POS would also be considered at the reserved matters stage.  The aim would be to mitigate the landscape impact of the development.

·         The viability of the drainage proposals was questioned.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that there was sufficient capacity in the proposed attenuation basins to cope with a 1 in 100 year rainfall event.

·         The vehicular access and pedestrian access were criticised.

·         Building to Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes was not appropriate.   It was noted that the draft Heads of Terms provided that the affordable housing units were to be constructed to Code Level 4.

·         It was requested that the affordable housing should be “pepperpotted” across the site.

·         A concern was expressed about the protection of trees on the site.  The site did not bring the two halves of the village together.  The provision in the draft Heads of Terms for creation of new footpaths and cycleway and enhancement in the usability of existing ones connecting to the site was important.  It was noted that this aspect would require discussion at the reserved matters stage.

The Development Manager made the following comments:

·         Only one year group at Cradley Primary School was currently over capacity.  The draft Heads of Terms provided for enhanced educational infrastructure.

·         The vehicular access was good.  He considered that refusal on grounds of access would not be defendable at appeal and there was a risk of costs being awarded against the Council.

·         The village through previous Development Plan documents had sought to maintain a strategic gap between the two halves because of landscape impact.

·         The distribution of affordable homes within the development would be one of a number of issues considered at the reserved matters stage.  If the details of he scheme were not considered acceptable the matter could be brought back before the Committee.

·         He reiterated that the proposed density of development (25 houses per hectare) was relatively low.  The Council’s policies had previously considered a density of a minimum of 35 houses per hectare to be acceptable.  Under the current policy regard was had to the character of the area but a density of 25 was still relatively low.  He cautioned against refusal of the application on this ground.

The Planning Lawyer commented that in considering the number of homes proposed weight could not be given to the draft Core Strategy.  Regard had to be had to the Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Committee had not utilised the NPPF balance, benefits had not been discussed and real and significant harm, with evidence in support, had not been identified.  She therefore considered that if the application were refused there would be a significant risk of costs being awarded against the Council at appeal.

In response to a suggestion that consideration of the application might be deferred the Development Manager commented that such a course ran the risk of an appeal on the grounds of non-determination.  The development represented sustainable development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that a group of houses below the site would be overlooked by the development.  He considered that the development was out of keeping with the village and supported a deferral to allow greater detail to be provided.  He hoped that this would enable officers to negotiate a smaller development.

An observation was made that the application was for outline permission.  Many of the Committee’s concerns related to detailed matters that would have to be the subject of a further application.  It was therefore proposed that, without incurring the risks outlined by officers, the Committee could approve the outline application but require the detailed application to be returned to it for consideration.

RESOLVED: That subject to the expiration of the public consultation period on 18 September 2014 and that no new material planning considerations are raised, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to complete a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990  planning obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, and are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary, and subject to any application for detailed reserved matters being forwarded to the Committee for determination.

Informatives: