Agenda item

Approval of matters reserved in respect of appearance, landscaping layout and scale following outline planning permission S/2876/16/OL for a residential development of 140 dwellings.

By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planner (Michael Sexton) presented the report and informed the Committee that there had been a written representation submitted by a resident in opposition to the application but stated that this representation did not raise any new issues that were not covered in the report. Local resident Mike Mason addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. James Griffiths, the agent of the application, spoke in support of the application and answered questions brought forward by Members.

Concerns over heating and electric car charging points were presented by the Committee, but the Chair and Delivery Manager informed Members that these concerns were not relevant to the Reserve Matters application. Members noted that the Parish Council had raised concerns that there were a number of roads that would potentially not be adopted by the Highways Authority and enquired what the proportions of unadopted roads on the site would be. The agent stated that the proportion was unknown at the time but informed the Committee that the developers would do what they could to ensure as many of the roads as possible, notwithstanding private drives, would be adopted by the Highways Authority and noted that any funding from residents for the upkeep of the unadopted roads would be ringfenced and protected. The Senior Planning Lawyer highlighted the provision in the Section 106 Agreement which outlines the responsibility of residents to maintain the LEAP and other onsite public open space if the management company ceased to exist. Whilst the provision did not extend to the maintenance of roads, the Senior Planning Lawyer stated that residents would be incentivised to ensure the management company did not fold and added that, in his experience, that the question of unadopted roads is not a material consideration for the refusal of a reserve matters application. The advice from the Senior Planning Lawyer was endorsed by the Delivery Manager.

Councillor Neil Gough addressed the Committee as a local Member with concurrence on his comments from the Parish Council. Councillor Gough declared two non-pecuniary interests. The first was that he was the Director of the company that sold the land to the developers (the sale was completed prior to the Councillor’s assumption of the Directorship), and the second was that the Councillor was a member of the Old West River Internal Drainage Board. The local Member stated that issues had largely been addressed to the satisfaction of the Parish Council and local Members. The Committee asked the local Member if he felt that a suitable drainage solution could be possible and if it would provide further assurance to concerned parties if a condition on drainage would come back to the Committee. The local Member could not declare if relevant parties would feel that a drainage condition could be effectively discharged, but did state that local parties would want to be involved in any discharge of such a condition. The Principal Planner informed the Committee that the site had not been recognised as a flood risk zone, that the Lead Local Flood Authority was consulted by the applicant and that drainage consultees were satisfied with the conditions put in place. Therefore, the Principal Planner advised that the concerns over drainage were not grounds for refusal.

Overall consensus amongst Committee Members was that there had been an improvement to the application, which was welcomed, and that the majority of remaining concerns over the application were not relevant to the Reserve Matters stage. Members expressed concerns over the lack of formal storage space in some of the designs in the report but the Principal Planner informed Councillors that, whilst dedicated storage space was not shown in some of the plans, there was ample storage space that ensured the application was compliant with storage regulations. The Committee revisited concerns over unadopted roads and drainage, with drainage being the main point of contention. To allay concerns over drainage, the Committee introduced an Action Point for Officers at the Discharge of Conditions stage that requested that the Parish Council were officially consulted over the discharge of the drainage condition and, if there were concerns from the Parish, that it would be brought back to the Committee.

By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.