Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval p143116/o for 321 residential dwellings. 

(Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval p143116/o for 321 residential dwellings.)

(Councillor Holton was fulfilling the local ward member role and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms N Shields, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr M Elliot, the agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor EL Holton, spoke on the application, together with adjoining ward Councillors EPJ Harvey and A Warmington whose wards were materially affected by the application.

Councillor Holton commented that the development was unwanted.  However, the Inspector had granted permission on appeal and officers had worked hard to seek to address concerns expressed by residents about the development and to secure the best scheme for the town.  In the circumstances, the focus should now be on the positive aspects of the development such as the economic benefit the development would bring to the town.

Councillor Warmington also remarked that the development was not wanted.  It would nonetheless proceed but he considered that there were major deficiencies in the proposed scheme.  These included the proposed housing mix, on which he was aware Councillor Harvey would elaborate, and connectivity which was critical to the development’s sustainability.  Some improvements requested by the inspector in relation to connectivity had not been made and in some aspects the current proposals were worse than earlier ones for example pedestrian/cycle access.  He also questioned whether the single means of access, off Leadon Way, presented a risk to access by emergency vehicles. He outlined a number of other unresolved issues.  He concluded that whilst the principle of development may have been established the Committee did not have to accept a deficient scheme.

Councillor Harvey too noted that the Council had refused permission for the scheme. However, the focus now had to be on how best to integrate the development into the community.  She commented that the development had a significant impact on the landscape and views approaching the Malvern Hills AONB.  The applicant may be challenging the authority for non-determination of the application but the fact remained that the applicant had not addressed a number of key matters including several points required by the Planning Inspector.  In terms of connectivity there had been changes to the pedestrian and cycleways,  some further information had been supplied to the highways department only last week and other information being sought by the highways department on a number of aspects was outstanding. She particularly highlighted concern about the change to the housing mix for the open market housing which provided no single bed houses, fewer two bedroom houses and more 4 bed and more properties than provided for in the Council’s policy as set out in the Local Housing Market Assessment. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy H3 of the Core Strategy.  There were a number of other issues where information was outstanding meaning that officers had not had time to address them.  She therefore considered that consideration of the application should be deferred, or it should be refused on the grounds that it did not comply with paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), or officers should be given delegated authority to approve the application subject to the agreement of local ward members.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·          It was questioned whether the proposal was in accordance with policy H3 and paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Local Housing Market Assessment 2013 that remained valid until the end of 2017 recommended that in terms of the mix of open market housing planning policies should not be over prescriptive and that in most instances the market was best placed to determine what would sell.  The Council therefore had no specific policy in relation to the mix of open market housing on a development.  This could be reviewed as part of the review of the Core Strategy.  The scheme was compliant with policy in relation to the provision of affordable housing.

·          The report suggested that the 3 bedroom properties were relatively modest in size but this did not mean they could be equated with 2 bedroom properties.

·          Councillor Powers moved and Councillor Norman seconded a motion to the effect that subject to the scheme being amended by reducing the number of open market houses of 4 and more bedrooms by 25 and increasing 2 bedroom houses by 25 and authorisation by all 3 local ward members officers be given delegated authority to grant permission.

Some members suggested that the proposal was too prescriptive and officers should be afforded greater flexibility.

·          A number of issues were outstanding making it difficult to assess the sustainability of the proposal and whether the Inspector’s requirements would be met.

·          There was a lack of clarity about the provision of public open space and its ongoing maintenance.

·          It was suggested that road signage could be improved.

·          It was questioned why there was no pedestrian access to the west.

·          Concern was expressed about the noise generated by a nearby business.

·          As the site was on the other side of the bypass from the town account should be taken of the scope for the design to reflect the transition from town to countryside.

·          The quality of the development would be important.  It was noted that the historic buildings officer had commented that no attempt had been made to respect the local distinctiveness of the area.

·          The site was in proximity to Malvern Hills AONB.  It was important to seek to reduce the impact of the harm.

·          In relation to the question of non-determination the lead development manager commented that in the absence of a five year housing land supply a judgment would have to be made as to where the planning balance lay.  He suggested that if members wished further consideration to be given to the open market housing mix it would be preferable if any resolution was not prescriptive.  He noted that such a proposal may also require further consultation dependent on the revisions.

The PPO commented as follows:

·        It was not a requirement of the reserved matters application to address all the conditions imposed by the Inspector. With reference to condition 21 relating to noise, for example, the Environmental Health Officer had to be satisfied that a scheme could be implemented to mitigate that issue.  It was then incumbent upon the developer to submit a suitable scheme to enable the application to proceed.  The absence of the detailed scheme at this stage was not a ground upon which to refuse a reserved matters application.

·        Condition 17 required appropriate pedestrian/cycle improvements.  A separate application to vary this condition had been received and would be considered.  He was not aware that the width of the footpath/cycleway at 3m represented a reduced proposal.  The location of the pedestrian crossing of the A417 was in accordance with the Inspector’s condition.

·        A detailed landscaping scheme had been received but the plans were too large to have been shown as part of the presentation.

·        The applicant was providing an increased area of public open space, above the minimum requirement. Condition 2 required the outstanding information required by the Parks and Countryside Officer to be produced.

·        He considered that outstanding matters were addressed by conditions.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application had to be considered on its merits.  No regard could be had to any stated intentions to develop adjoining sites.  There were no current applications.

The local ward member and adjoining local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Warmington commented that noise from the bypass was a concern.  He remained concerned that the width of the proposed footpaths/cycleways was too narrow at 3m.  He firmly believed there was scope to revise the open market housing mix.

Councillor Harvey reiterated that current policy supported a revision to the open market housing mix the applicant was now proposing.

Councillor Holton considered that the conditions provided for the concerns that had been raised to be addressed by officers.

Following advice Councillor Powers moved and Councillor Norman seconded the following revised proposal: that subject to the scheme being amended by reducing the number of open market four (and more) bed units and increasing the number of 2 bed units and conditions referred to in the report and the update report, delegated authorisation be given to officers to grant permission in conjunction with the Chairman of the Planning Committee (in discussion with the three ward members).

There were 12 votes in favour, 1 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the scheme being amended by reducing the number of open market four (and more) bed units and increasing the number of 2 bed units and conditions referred to in the report and the update report, delegated authorisation be given to officers to grant permission in conjunction with the Chairman of the Planning Committee (in discussion with the three ward members).

(The meeting adjourned between 11.45 am and 11.58am)