Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, with new vehicular/pedestrian access onto A38, relocation of bus stop, sustainable drainage and Foul Treatment Works and associated landscaping, access and parking.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

34.49        This was an update report on the application for residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, with new vehicular/pedestrian access parking onto A38, relocation of bus stop, sustainable drainage and foul treatment works and associated landscaping, access and parking.

34.50        The Development Manager indicated that he was presenting this application as the issues were similar to the last application in respect of S106 contributions. He reminded Members that at the June 2019 Planning Committee, it was resolved to delegate permission to the Development Manager subject to a number of matters including the completion of a S106 legal agreement, the drafting of which was well advanced.  Since the previous resolution, the County Council’s S106 Officer had provided further evidence to justify the requested education and library contributions thus meeting the required tests set out in Paragraph 2.1 of the update report but again those contributions had increased. In respect of education the County Council had requested circa £360,000 and a contribution of £4,900 was also requested towards library infrastructure. The applicant had advised that the contributions towards education and libraries made the scheme unviable and had provided evidence in this respect. The scheme had been independently assessed and the Council’s consultant had advised that the development could only sustain the requested library contribution of £4,900 and a reduced education contribution of £70,000 for the scheme to remain viable which was in addition to the 40% affordable housing agreed at the time in accordance with policy; the applicant had accepted these conclusions and had agreed to the contributions. The Development Manager indicated that he would not repeat the information on national and local policy as this would be fresh in Members minds arising from the consideration of the last application. Again this was a matter for Members to determine and, as set out in the update report, the Officer recommendation in respect of this development was that the 40% affordable housing agreed with the developer be maintained, with a £70,000 contribution to education and £4,900 toward library infrastructure. Again, this was for the reasons mentioned earlier in terms of the alternative funding available to the County Council, which was not the case, at this time, for affordable housing. The County Council had updated its response to the application and had objected in the same terms as for the previous application at Whittle Square, in relation to the need for the full requested contributions as there were no other funding streams available. Again, this did not reflect the terms of the government guidance as highlighted by the previous application and also the County Council’s own comments that it may be possible to redivert funding or borrow. Once again, whilst there was sympathy with the position of the County Council, this position did not provide a robust reason to refuse planning permission. There had been no other material changes in circumstances since the previous recommendation and therefore the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit as set out in the update report with any additional/amended conditions/obligations as necessary.

34.51        The Chair of Leigh Parish Council was invited to address the Committee and he maintained that since the developer first submitted its application things had changed in particular traffic volume had increased and so to had the number of houses by 20%. Employment opportunities had decreased, availability of school places had decreased in fact all of the desirable things related to a development had decreased while the undesirable things had increased. This development would put additional pressure on drainage systems further downstream, would have environmental issues due to the absence of mains sewer, lack of public open space, lack of sufficient visitor parking with only five spaces for 26 houses. The Chair of the Parish Council stated that this proposed development lacked a lot and contributed very little, a school report, if you could get a space at the local school, would say, “could do better if they tried harder”. He drew attention to the fact that in the last few days details of the M5 junction 10 improvement scheme and Coombe Hill junction improvements had been made public. The details of the scheme specifically mentioned the need for safety improvements on the A38 to the north of Coombe Hill just where the proposed development would access the A38. Also, Junction 10 improvements would lead to much increased traffic flow at Coombe Hill enough to justify spending between £3.5 and £5 million to rectify. Part of this junction improvement entailed removing the boundary hedge between the proposed development and the A38 to allow for road realignment which would greatly affect the visual appearance and change the proposal into something more akin to a roadside development frequently found in inner cities. In conclusion he indicated that the Parish Council was of the view that this application must be refused in its current form; it now needed a major redesign to allow for the Junction improvements and to conform to JCS policies as it conflicted with SP2 and SD10 amongst others. In addition, if the developer could not fully fund its share of Community Infrastructure, it should not be asking the Borough to supplement its profit margin at the expense of local residents.

34.52        The Chair asked the Development Manager to comment on the points made around the highway improvements. The Development Manager stated that he thought the point was one of timing. Obviously, Members would have seen the proposals for J10 but they were only at the consultation stage and other things such as developments in the pipeline could not stand still. Any improvements to the local highway network would need to take account of development that had already taken place. He maintained that looking at it rationally it could be considered that there was a prematurity argument in terms of the highway works but prematurity was seldom an argument or sound basis on which to object to a planning application. Subsequently it was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application subject to the resolution of any outstanding matters in respect of ecological mitigation measures, any additional/amended conditions/obligations arising and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the following contributions: 40% affordable housing, recycling and waste bins - £73 per dwelling; education contribution - £70,000 and library contribution - £4,900.