Agenda item

The Development Management Team Leader submitted a report and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained further representations, addressed typographical errors within the report and included 2 additional conditions. The Committee heard that the majority of the site sat within Flood Zone 1 and that it was home to several areas of archaeological interest, including a Neolithic causeway (which would be preserved as an area of green space) and an Anglo-Saxon site. It was explained that whilst the provision of an on-site healthcare facility was not requested as part of the development, NHS England and Nene Clinical Commissioning Group (CGC) had requested financial contributions to mitigate healthcare impacts arising from the proposal. Access onto the development would be from Mill Lane, Harlestone Road/Hawksmoor Way and via a further phase of the North West Relief Road. A secondary vehicular access from Kings Heath would provide access to 100 dwellings only.  The proposals include the provision of include the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes into the surrounding area, and improvement to public transport links which would be secured by a Section 106 agreement. A new roundabout was proposed on Mill Lane as a response to objections to the proposed closure of Nene Way.  The proposal also included improvements to Harlestone Road and the surrounding road network. The Committee heard that more green space was being provided than was required of the developer and that whilst there were a number of wildlife sites within or adjacent to the site locally designated for nature conservation,  this did not prohibit developers from building, subject to appropriate mitigation and updated protected species reports being approved by the Council. A viability assessment found that for the site to remain viable only 10% of homes would be affordable. Of that 10%, 100 would be constructed early; this would be secured through the S106 Agreement. Air quality mitigation was proposed through conditions and charging points for electric and hybrid vehicles would be placed within the local centre.

Councillor T Eales, as the Ward Councillor, spoke against the item and asked the Committee to defer consideration of the application until changes had been made. She had concerns around the apparent lack of consultation and that the social housing seemed to be excluded from the rest of the development. She further stated that Kings Heath residents would struggle to access the facilities.

In response to a question, Councillor T Eales commented that she would like to see road access from Kings Heath to the proposed development.

Councillor G Eales spoke against the application and voiced concerns around highway pressures, stating that the North West Relief Road should be built before any development took place. He noted the apparent lack of meaningful consultation with residents and stated that he was concerned about S106 contributions not being spent on existing estates.

Responding to a question, Councillor G Eales commented that the proposed 100 affordable homes would be situated in a way that isolated them from the rest of the development; he deemed this unacceptable.

Angela Bartlett, spokeswoman for WASPRA, spoke against the application and stated that the North West Relief Road, as well as not being fit for purpose, would increase traffic on impacted roads by up to 80%.

Rob Riding, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application and noted that the site had long been allocated as a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE); the application represented a major investment in new homes as well as providing a further section of the North West Relief Road, 8 new sports pitches, and a net gain in biodiversity through the submission of Landscaping and Ecological Management Plans.

In response to questions, Mr Riding confirmed that play areas for children would be provided within the development. He further confirmed that normally a developer could expect to make 20% profit; the figure was lower for this development.

Laura Bazley of WSP spoke in support of the application and commented that cycle networks and bus routes would link the development to surrounding sites and the town centre. She explained that the reason behind no access from Kings Heath to the development was due to the roads on Kings Heath not being able to cope with increased traffic. She further explained that charging points for electric vehicles would be installed throughout the development.

The Development Management Team Leader explained to Members that the application had been the subject of extensive consultation, as recently as April 2018; a notice had been published in the local newspaper and notices displayed around the site. She noted that the developer was only required to mitigate the impacts of their own development and responding to a question around affordable housing, stated that the affordable housing on any new development can be subject to viability; it was not unreasonable to expect a developer to want to make a profit.

In response to further questions, the Committee heard that as per the S106 Agreement, a management company would likely be responsible for maintaining open spaces on the development.

The Head of Planning reported that on 10^th September 2018, the Council resolved, through a motion, to seek alternatives to management companies wherever possible, to assuage concerns of residents and Members.

In addition, to the outline application the Development Management Team Leader reported on an application under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act for the permanent diversion of Public Footpath HW44.  The Development Management Team Leader reported that it was considered the diversion was necessary in order to implement the outline planning application which would result in the provision of up to 3,000 homes and other facilities in close proximity to an at grade crossing, and the potential for increased use of the crossing and increased risk to safety.  The Development Management Team Leader stated that no conditions could be imposed upon the footpath diversion; should the application be approved, consultation would subsequently begin.

She explained that trigger points for various S106 payments would be monitored by the Council, as part of conditioned requirements.

In response to a question regarding highway mitigation, the Development Management Team Leader advised that she could not confirm figures given by Ms Bartlett, but stated that traffic was expected to increase along Brampton Lane.  The North West Relief Road would be subject to a planning application which would be required to mitigate the highway impacts on the surrounding road network of the proposed road. Responding to a question regarding the affordable housing proportion, she explained that there were numerous costs associated with the development and that a viability assessment was undertaken independently on behalf of the Council.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the applications be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and the addendum