Construction of 129 dwellings, provision of public open space, and associated works.

Construction of 129 dwellings, provision of public open space, and associated works

The Principal Planning Officer advised that consultation had been undertaken on amended plans and reported the following:

• Hereford City Council had no objections;
• Lower Bullingham Parish Council had expressed concerns about the high density of development and lack of open space;
• the Strategic Housing Manager noted the broader mix of dwelling types and had no objections provided that the phase 3 development had a higher proportion of larger affordable housing units, an informative note would be added to any planning permission granted as a result;
• Marches Housing Association, which was likely to take over the affordable housing element, confirmed that the amended layout was satisfactory;
• The Traffic Manager requested minor modifications to certain roads and footpaths; and
• the Landscape Officer welcomed the use of mature trees but asked that different species be planted in some instances.

The Sub-Committee was advised that the recommendation remained the same but for the receipt of amended layouts to the satisfaction of the Traffic Manager and the Landscape Officer.

Councillor Mrs. W.U. Attfield, a Local Ward Member, welcomed the affordable housing element but noted that a number of matters needed to be resolved, including the blocking of potential short cuts to prevent criminal activity.  She felt that there had been significant drift away from the original master plan for Bradbury Lines and urged officers to carefully supervise the development.  She also expressed concerns about highway congestion and safety.  Councillor R. Preece, also a Local Member, supported these views, particularly the need to block a specific short cut onto Ross Road.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a 1.8m wall along the boundary should address this concern.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that:

• the Traffic Manager was satisfied with the overall layout, therefore a major re-design was not required but minor amendments would be needed to ensure that the roads were built to adoptable standards;
• the community facilities agreed as part of the master plan would be brought forward as part of the next phase of development; and

·         47 units per hectare was at the upper limit of what was envisaged at the outline stage but was considered appropriate given the location of the site and the number of apartments proposed.

A number of Members felt that the absence of community facilities to date was disappointing and that the next phase of development should include a greater proportion of affordable and social housing units, particularly bungalows for the elderly.  Concern was expressed that additional planning gain and infrastructure improvements had not been forthcoming despite the fact that the total number of units across the whole site was likely to be at least 100 above that envisaged in the master plan.

Whilst noting the concerns of Local Ward Members, some Members felt that pedestrians and cyclists would find the limited number of access points frustrating.

A number of Members felt that the high density of development was not appropriate for this location and that private amenity space should not be sacrificed.

A concern was expressed that the report did not include the comments of a number of consultees and it was felt that the application should not be determined until all the matters had been addressed.

In response to Members’ concerns, Officers provided the following advice:

• the units approved to date and those proposed under this application would not exceed the total of 500 units envisaged in the master plan;
• the wildlife mitigation measures were outlined;

·         the outline planning permission required developers to provide details of noise attenuation measures;

·         the single vehicular access was part of the design ethos of the development in order to prevent the area becoming a thoroughfare for other traffic but there would be other routes for pedestrians, cyclists and buses;

·         the amended landscaping proposals were considered acceptable given the central open space and the number of play and games areas;

·         the density of the development was considered reasonable and in line with the relevant policy;

·         the lack of private amenity space was not considered critical given that the apartments would benefit from access immediately onto the central open space;

·         the piecemeal nature of development was unfortunate but perhaps unavoidable given the scale of the site; and

·         the report had been prepared before comments of consultees had been received on amended plans and, as indicated at the start of the meeting, the majority of concerns had been overcome or would be through minor modifications.

The Chairman noted Members’ unease but reminded the Sub-Committee that they had to consider the application before them.

It was proposed that the application be approved but, in consultation with the Chairman and the Local Members, Officers be authorised to undertake further negotiations with the applicant to ensure that there was investment in the community facilities, especially medical provision, given that areas of play space had been removed from the proposals.

Members expressed further concerns about density, amenity space and lack of additional infrastructure.

The Central Team Leader stressed that this application was not an appropriate mechanism to secure additional improvements and that phase 3 would provide opportunities to address a number of the issues raised by Members.  He added that the Sub-Committee was at risk of treating this development differently to those already approved as part of phase 2.

Some Members felt that consideration of the application should be deferred for further negotiations regarding affordable housing and amenity space and to secure additional improvements.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer outlined the legal considerations and re-iterated that the initial concerns of consultees had been addressed subject to minor modifications.

A motion to defer consideration of the application was lost and the recommendation was approved subject to the comments made by the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:

That subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions/notes and any additional conditions/notes considered necessary by Officers.

1       The applicant’s attention is drawn to conditions attached to Outline Planning Consent Ref. CE2001/2757/O which require further details to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development.

2        N02 - Section 106 Obligation

3       N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC