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

Wards: Belmont and Hollington

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

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Central Team Leader reported that:

§             The Environment Agency had raised an objection due to potential flooding in the north-east corner of the site and the associated lack of clarification in respect of sustainable drainage/surface water run-off techniques proposed.

§             The Highways Agency was reviewing the additional information submitted in relation to junction capacity modelling and the Residential Travel Plan.

§             A Draft Section 106 Agreement had been received from the applicants confirming agreement to the contributions as stated in the report.

§             An amended plan had been provided which showed an improved distribution of the affordable units.

§             An amended bridge design had been received but was the subject of consultation with the Conservation Manager.

§             The applicants had submitted a proposed phasing condition for delivery of the Country Park.

§             The Council’s Conservation Manager had requested additional conditions confirming compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and the Ecological Planning Statement.

The Central Team Leader commented that:

§             The applicants had submitted additional information to the Highways Agency and Environment Agency in order to overcome their respective objections but these matters remained unresolved at the time of the Sub-Committee meeting.  Therefore, the recommendation sought officer delegation to approve or refuse permission before 7 December 2007, based upon the outcome of ongoing discussions, in conjunction with the Chairman and Local Ward Members.

§             The topography and land ownership difficulties of providing access to Newton Coppice were outlined and the Sub-Committee was advised that an alternative approach was being investigated by the Parks and Countryside Manager.  Given the need for funding to establish its feasibility, this requirement was reflected in the increased contribution set against the Transportation Section of the revised Planning Contributions.

§             The affordable housing numbers remained at 35% of the development identified but the proposed tenure split had changed to 12 rented and 12 shared ownership, thereby enabling an increase in the Planning Contributions budget.

§             The revised Planning Contributions were given as:

1.      £90,000 Education/Children and Young People.

2.      £216,528 Transportation improvements in the area including provision of car parking, directional signage and appropriate infrastructure for the countryside centre, the provision of a safe crossing across Haywood Lane and the enhancement of safe access to Newton Coppice (including footpath upgrades and speed restrictions on the A465 as deemed necessary).  This contribution would include any feasibility or detailed design work as well as implementation costs required to provide enhanced facilities.

3.      £28,350 Enhancement of sports facilities in the area.

4.      £34,500 in lieu of LEAP play area.

§             In addition to the above contributions, it was recommended that the Section 106 Agreement should enable flexibility to allow any monies not required to be directed towards the design and implementation of the Countryside Centre.

§             The phasing condition proposed was considered acceptable subject to the inclusion of the car park and signage for the Country Park.

Councillor PJ Edwards, a Local Ward Member, drew attention to the debate at the last meeting [Minute 85 refers] and to the objections of Belmont Rural Parish Council and Callow & Haywood Parish Council.  He commented that there was a difficult balance between providing the long anticipated Country Park for the wider community of Belmont and protecting the amenities of the residents of Mulberry Close.  It was noted that the officers and Local Ward Members had worked hard to address the concerns of the parish councils, mitigate the impact of the development and secure suitable contributions for the benefit of the locality.  He felt that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues, the officer’s recommendation could be supported.

Councillor H Davies, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the access via Mulberry Close would have an unacceptable impact on local residents and could compromise highway and pedestrian safety.  It was noted that concerns had been raised at the last meeting about the use of Mulberry Close as the only means of access for the development and Councillor Davies did not feel that this issue had been addressed.  Other members expressed similar views.

Councillor GFM Dawe, Member for the adjoining Hollington Ward, felt that the increase from 60 dwellings indicated in the Unitary Development Plan to 69 dwellings through this application represented over intensification in the use of this site.  He felt it essential that sustainable means of transport were promoted and asked that monies be allocated specifically to deliver good cycleway connections between the Country Park and the city.

In response to questions from Councillor AP Taylor, the Central Team Leader advised that, whilst it would not be possible to prevent parking on the public highway directly through this residential scheme, the new car parking area for the Country Park would be provided off Treago Grove and measures would be put in place to actively encourage visitors to use this parking provision in order to reduce occurrences of on street parking.

Councillor PA Andrews drew attention to references in the report to a proposed emergency access off Kingfisher Road and questioned whether this could be utilised as all or part access to the development, particularly given the potential problems resulting from the narrowness of Mulberry Close.  The Central Team Leader advised that the issue of access had been raised with the applicant but an access off Kingfisher Road was not without its own problems due to on street parking and the number of accesses in this location.  He added that dual access could result in ‘rat running’ through the estate.  Furthermore, the Unitary Development Plan [UDP] sought to identify a preferred vehicular access off Kingfisher Road but the Inspector stated that ‘I did not gain the impression that access via Mulberry Close would be any more damaging’.

Councillor AT Oliver expressed concerns about the potential for granting planning permission for unsuitable schemes on the back of the desire to secure funding for separate infrastructure improvements.  He also felt that the outstanding objections, especially in relation to flooding, had to be addressed.

Councillor SJ Robertson acknowledged the wider community benefits but felt that this should not be to the detriment of the quality of life for local residents.  She also felt that a Local Equipped Area of Play should be an integral part of the scheme and not located on the edge of the development where there might not be adequate natural surveillance.

Councillor MAF Hubbard sympathised with the concerns of local residents and felt that the impact of the development could be mitigated through the provision of accesses from both Mulberry Close and Kingfisher Road but with each serving one side of the development only.  He suggested that cycleways should be fully linked up with other residential developments.  He also felt that the limited spread of affordable housing through the development was unsatisfactory and could be improved.

Councillor RI Matthews commended the hard work of officers and the Local Ward Members on this application to achieve the identified benefits to the wider community.

A number of members supported the suggestion of dual but limited access but felt unable to support the scheme in its present form, particularly given the standing objections of the Highway Agency and Environment Agency.

Councillor DB Wilcox commented on the need for flexibility under the Heads of Terms to enable consideration to be given to a range of traffic management measures on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.  He also suggested that the authority delegated to officers to determine the application be extended to enable the issue of dual access to be explored properly.

Councillor Edwards commented that: dual access should be explored if technically feasible; cycle routes between this area and the city centre were already established and well used; the UDP Inspector confirmed that the linkage to a residential scheme was appropriate to deliver the Country Park; the affordable housing provision was much needed; and there should be flexibility to allocate sums to a wide range of improvements but any monies not required should be directed towards the provision of the Countryside Centre.

The Development Control Manager advised that refusal on the grounds of highway safety could be difficult to sustain on appeal but noted that members’ concerns about the consequential impact of additional traffic on residential amenities was a material planning consideration in this instance.  Nevertheless, officers considered that the proposal was acceptable, having regard to the requirement to deliver the Country Park and the wider community benefits.  The need for flexibility in respect of transportation improvements was noted and it was suggested that officers could look at this further with the local ward members.

In response to questions, the Central Team Leader advised that dual access was not part of the application and, therefore, it was unlikely that it could be progressed as part of this scheme in its current form.

A motion to approve the application was lost and the resolution below was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, which in this case may be related to the outstanding concerns expressed by the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.            The development is entirely reliant upon a single point of vehicular access from Mulberry Close, a lightly trafficked quiet residential cul-de-sac, and by reason of the number of dwellings proposed, there would be a significant uplift in vehicle movements that would be detrimental to residential amenity contrary to Policies DR2 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.]