Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: West Hunsbury

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2007/1570, noted that the site lay within Upton Ward rather than West Hunsbury Ward, elaborated upon the report and referred to the Addendum that set out comments from the Homes and Communities Agency and additional text for the “Access and Transport” section on page 46 of the agenda pack. He in particular referred to paragraphs 8.41 and 8.42 in terms of flood mitigation measures for that part of the site that was within Flood Zone 3a.  

Councillor Bottwood as Ward Councillor, commented that he supported the development and commented that it was vital that infrastructure was put in place before the development of homes so as to avoid the problems that had been experienced in the development of Upton. The modal shift to public transport (anticipated by the County Council) had not happened and therefore adequate drop off and pick up points were needed for the proposed school; there also needed to be sustainable public transport solutions and he compared the situation in other parts of the Town where bus companies had withdrawn services once Section 106 funding had come to an end. Councillor Bottwood referred to the proposed health centre and noted that this had been promised before but had not happened; some residents in Upton had had to use doctors’ surgeries in Bugbrooke. He also suggest that play areas should be provided throughout the site as the housing development took place to avoid the whole site from becoming a playground.

Mr Wright, on behalf the applicant, commented that Prologis had been involved in developments in Northampton for 15 years including at Pineham. They had already spent some £35m on infrastructure at Pineham North and had attracted employers such as BMW, Sainsbury’s and Dalepack. This proposal was for a mixed housing, commercial, community and school development. Prologis were not house builders so they had formed a partnership with Taylor Wimpey who would be taking the application on from this point. Mr Wright commented that the application would help to fulfil the South West District Master Plan. In answer to questions Mr Wright commented that rainwater harvesting had been a feature they had incorporated into commercial developments, in principle in had no objection to drop off points being provided for the proposed school, but these issues and the phasing of development vis a vis the provision of infrastructure needed to be addressed to Taylor Wimpey.  

Mr Williams, on behalf of Taylor Wimpey, confirmed that they had exchanged contracts with Prologis and had a partnership arrangement with Orbit Housing. He also confirmed that a further 36 affordable housing units would be provided over and above those provided for in the Section 106 Agreement. Taylor Wimpey wanted to build a quality development: it would create jobs locally and they were looking forward to developing the site. Mr Williams commented that they were very aware of the importance of how the school would relate to the surrounding area; that parking for the school was important- there would be onsite parking and a feeder road; and that the development would be built to Code Level 3 and they would be happy to investigate rain water harvesting. In answer to questions Mr Williams commented that there was no particular issue with providing a premises to be used as a health facility the issue was whether one of the Health Trusts would be willing to take it on; that the County Council would have guidance about parking provision for schools but they were aware of the need to have an adequate entrance to the site and to provide a drop off facility: there was plenty of land within the site to do this; that the Environment Agency had signed off the project on the basis of the agreed flood attenuation measures that included raising the ground level of part of the site; that there would be phased approach to infrastructure provision: it was in their best interests to be able to advertise housing with facilities that were available: this development represented a massive investment on the part of Taylor Wimpey; and that Orbit Housing would be partner to the subsequent reserved matters application.

The Head of Planning commented that although it was important to establish the framework for the development this application was for outline approval and that matters of detail such as parking would be dealt with as part of a subsequent reserved matters application. He referred to the proposed conditions set out in the report. He noted that the timing of infrastructure delivery was important and that some aspects such as roads and cycle paths were well advanced. Proposed Condition 5 controlled the phasing and delivery of community facilities. He confirmed that rainwater harvesting could be controlled under recommended conditions 8 and 24. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that Health Trusts could not be forced to take on a facility: it was up to them to show an interest; and that the Environment Agency had not revised their opinion since the heavy spring rains.         

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be approved in principle subject to:

(1)   Prior finalisation of a S106 agreement to secure the following matters or such amendments or additional obligations as the Head of Planning may consider appropriate in the circumstances:

a)    Education and Community Facilities Package to secure as part of the development:

•          Funding and land to deliver a one form entry primary school with the potential for it to be a two form entry primary school;

•          A Community Resource Centre providing rooms and facilities for community use and delivery of local services including health care, libraries, police, fire and rescue including a management regime and constitution to ensure dual use operation and full community use (including joint use of enhanced school/community hall) outside of school hours; and 

•          Outdoor recreation facilities for the school and Pineham Village community;

b)      Funding to improve existing and deliver new transport facilities supported by a Travel Plan to:

•           Enhance bus services / facilities;

•          Provide and enhance cycle and pedestrian facilities off-site to improve the development’s links with the surrounding area and the town centre; and

•          Measures to prevent HGV’s passing through the development;

c)      Affordable Housing at a blended rate of 22.5% on-site provision (20% phase I and 25% phase II) of which 70% to be Social Rent and 30% Intermediate Housing.  NB also see (2) below in respect of 36 units of affordable rent;

d)       Open Space and Play Space:

•          Submit for approval a public open space and play space / equipment strategy including location, programme of delivery and management / maintenance provisions;

•          Implement approved strategy in accordance with specification and phasing; and

•          Transfer public open space and play space to management company with commitment to maintain in accordance with approved management plan;

e)        On-site skills related training during construction works;

f)          S106 monitoring payment; and

g)           Phased independent re-assessment of viability and review of obligations accordingly.

(2)     Receipt by the Borough Council of documentation from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) that confirms it would provide grant funding to ensure the delivery of 36 affordable rent homes (additional to those to be secured via the S106 agreement obligations) as part of the development here proposed; and

(3)     The conditions set out in this report or such amendment or additional conditions as the Head of Planning may consider appropriate in the circumstances.

As the proposed development was acceptable given its location within the South West District of Northampton, an identified area for planned growth of the town. The proposed scheme would bring forward a sustainable residential community, would facilitate improved infrastructure and services in the area and would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of Northampton. The scheme was considered to be in accordance with the policies of the development plan and National Planning Policy Framework.  Furthermore, any adverse impacts identified within the Environmental Statement were capable of being mitigated through appropriate design and the imposition of conditions and/or the obligations contained within the S106 agreement.  Consequently the environmental impact was considered to be acceptable.

1.2    In the event that the S106 Agreement was not  completed and signed within four months of the date of the Committee decision, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to be able (but not obliged) to refuse or finally dispose of the application, at their discretion, on the basis that the necessary mitigation had not been secured for the development proposed.