Redevelopment of site, including demolition works to provide residential development comprising up to 192 units including a 60 bed extra care home and ancillary uses, new public realm and landscaping.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Strategic Applications Officer gave a presentation on the application. He clarified that condition 36 listed in the recommendation should refer to a maximum of 192 units, not 191.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr O’Brien, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MAF Hubbard, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was for outline planning permission.  In principle he accepted the development of a brownfield site within walking distance of the city centre and to its economic benefit, although a site further to the south would have been preferable.

·         He urged great caution over the risk to the site of flooding, which he considered inevitable, and emphasised the need for the Committee to satisfy itself, when considering the detailed application, that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective.  There were a number of examples across the Country of new developments that had suffered flooding.

·         The Environment Agency had identified the need to provide flood free access to the northern part of the site.

·         Several plots of land required for the scheme were not in control of the Council.  He asked how it was proposed to ensure that the scheme was deliverable.

·         He expressed regret at the closure or relocation of a number of local businesses.

·         With reference to the Transportation Manager’s comments in the report at paragraph 4.5, he questioned whether it was legally possible, as proposed, to make the progress of the scheme conditional upon the development of the link road.  When the planning application for the retail quarter had been considered it had been suggested that such a condition could not be imposed

·         Access to the extra care facility for elderly pedestrians and mobility impaired people needed to be addressed.

·         The report should have stated that the ratio of parking spaces to properties would be 1.3 and not rounded up the figure to 1.5.  This was a significant difference.

·         Planning permission needed to be conditional on a travel plan, either at the outline or detailed stage.

·         It was essential that the development provided for high quality cycle parking.

·         Further consideration needed to be given to the provision of adequate public open space.  The suggestion in the report by the Parks and Countryside Manager that enhanced facilities should be provided at the King George V playing fields was not acceptable.  He expressed concern that this aspect had not been discussed with him as ward member.

In response to the points raised the Strategic Applications Officer commented:

·           There had been a detailed flood risk assessment.  The Environment Agency and the Council’s drainage engineer were content that the scheme could proceed. 

·           Condition 33 required safe access in the event of flooding to be provided across the whole site including the northern section.

·           Regarding land ownership the majority of the site was either owned by the Council or would be secured through the link road Compulsory Purchase Order.  There were two additional properties to be acquired.  This should have been clarified by the time the detailed application was submitted and the scheme would need to be modified to reflect the land ownership situation at that time.

·           It was appropriate to make the scheme partly conditional upon the development of the link road, given the confidence that the scheme would proceed now that planning permission for it had been granted and that the associated Compulsory Purchase Order was shortly to be made.  This was also the recommendation of the Transportation Manager in this instance.

·           Safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the extra care facility would be provided.

·           He acknowledged the need to ensure that sufficient detail of cycle parking provision was provided when the detailed planning application was sought.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Several Members spoke in support of the Ward Member’s concerns.

·         It was essential that alternative car parking was provided and clearly signposted.   The loss of low cost commuter parking needed to be addressed.

·         Cycling parking needed to be provided to a good standard and the development made user friendly for cyclists.

·         The detailed planning application needed to have a joined up approach to landscaping.

·         Concern was expressed at the absence of a policy prescribing sustainability standards prevented a condition being imposed requiring higher construction standards than were being proposed.

·         Measures to mitigate flooding, including flash flooding which was thought likely to become more frequent, were essential.  Concern was expressed that the present proposals were not sufficient to protect the site and that they would also lead to problems elsewhere. The Yazor brook was at capacity since the recent flood alleviation scheme had been put in place. It might be difficult for householders to obtain insurance.

·         Appropriate public open space needed to be provided on site.  It was to be regretted that the ward member had not been consulted on this aspect.

·         A Member questioned whether the application should be deferred pending the production of an Annual Monitoring Report providing the evidence for housing need. 

·         It was understood that Hereford United Football Club intended to develop the stand at the northern end of the ground and, if made larger, this would affect the light and amenity of properties proposed to be built in that part of the development.

·         It was to be regretted that the extra care housing was included in the affordable housing provision and it was questioned what evidence of affordable housing need there was.

·         The scheme should be of a higher standard.  It did not have the desirable features of an urban village such as community facilities. 

·         There would be a risk of noise from the link road.

·         Where would coaches for football matches park?

·         The scheme should be designed so that cycling and walking should be the first choice.

·         The aim should be to maintain and enhance the landscape.

·         Displaced businesses should be supported in seeking to find alternative sites and given certainty over the timing of the redevelopment.

In response to the points raised the Strategic Applications Officer commented:

·         The masterplan reflected the proposed re-development of the Merton stand and the Football Club was content with the scheme.  Discussions were taking place about the scale of any new stand and a land swap was being proposed to facilitate this.

·         Additional car parking would be available on the Stanhope site before any development of the Merton Meadow site. A further site for car parking was the subject of the next application on the agenda.

·         A business relocation strategy was in place.

·         The planning service would work with the applicant to seek to achieve a higher sustainability standard. Policies in the approved draft Core Strategy would assist in this regard.

·         The 2013 Annual Monitoring Report was being prepared.  However, an interim assessment of housing land supply had shown a deficit of over 600 homes as at 2012.

·         Account would be taken of the observations made by the Committee in working on the detailed planning application.

Councillor Hubbard was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that he had assured himself that the phasing of development should mean parking provision was adequate.  Commuter parking needed to be secured.  He was, however, concerned that a strategy to deliver the necessary behavioural change was not yet in place.   He expressed criticism of the link road design and noted that it was to be expected that the road would be heavily used.  Consideration therefore needed to be given to measures to ensure that the environment for the people living on the development was appropriate.  He did not oppose the scheme but would expect the detailed design to address the issues that had been identified during the debate.

RESOLVED:

That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report and any varied or additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

INFORMATIVES

1.            The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.         N02     Section 106 Obligation

3.         HN08   Section 38 Agreement and Drainage Details

(The meeting adjourned between 11.55 am and 12:10 pm)