Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 32 new homes (including affordable housing), access, drainage and other associated works on land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane, Twigworth. All matters are reserved for future consideration except access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

64.14         This was an application for the erection of up to 32 new homes (including affordable housing), access, drainage and other associated works on land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane, Twigworth. All matters were reserved for future consideration except access.

64.15         The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of arable land covering approximately 1.17 hectares which was located to the south of Down Hatherley Lane at its junction with the A38.The site was predominantly level and bordered existing residential properties to the east and south-western boundary. Norton Garden Centre, which included a small area of scrubland, bordered the southern boundary. Down Hatherley Lane ran along the northern boundary and the A38 along the western site boundary. The site was not subject to any landscape designations, however, it contained a large, mature oak tree which was subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The application site formed part of the Strategic Allocation A1 ‘Innsworth and Twigworth’ as allocated in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘Housing and related infrastructure’ in the Indicative Site Layout Proposal Map.The application was made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, with the exception of access. The proposed development sought to provide up to 32 dwellings, a vehicular access route off Down Hatherley Lane, green infrastructure including public open space, a Local Area of Play, landscaping and an attenuation basin.The application documents included an illustrative site layout plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered.A single point vehicular access to the site would be accessed by a simple priority created from Down Hatherley Lane. An assessment of the principle of the development and other material considerations could be found on Pages No. 101-112 of the Agenda. As set out in the report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, the identified harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance and therefore it was considered the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole. The Planning Officer clarified that in relation to Condition 6 on the update sheet which referred to cycle parking this should read “no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the cycle parking…” rather than “not be occupied”. In addition, the Highways Authority had confirmed that condition 7 on the update sheet was no longer required and therefore should be deleted. Taking account of these minor amendments it was recommended that permission be delegated to the Development Manager, subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of an agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

64.16         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee. He explained that the proposal was a small part of the Innsworth and Twigworth Strategic Allocation and was shown as residential land in the Masterplan. As such, the proposal complied with the Development Plan. He indicated that they had met with the Parish Council and undertaken an extensive public consultation exercise and appreciated the concern about the change the area would go through as a result of the Strategic Allocation. In response, they had tried to design a sensitive scheme at a density of 27 dwellings per hectare to reflect the location of the site on the edge of the Strategic Allocation. Moreover, a development of this small size would provide an opportunity for a local or regional house builder and it was believed that these companies built well-designed better quality homes and had a much more local positive economic impact. It was hoped the Committee would agree that the indicative layout showed how 32 dwellings could be accommodated on the site in an attractive layout that celebrated and respected the magnificent Oak tree on the corner. A key issue had been drainage and he knew that flooding was a major issue meaning the drainage strategy must be right. The site had experienced ponding from time to time due to the failure of the Victorian field drains but engineers had worked long and hard with experts from the Lead Local Flood Authority to ensure the drainage strategy worked and would not cause problems elsewhere. This scheme would provide much needed affordable housing and the applicant was happy to contribute his fair share towards education and other benefits. He hoped the Committee was able to agree the Planning Officer’s recommendation for approval.

64.17         A Member referred to the concerns raised by Sandhurst Parish Council about access into the site as there was queuing along the A38 at certain times of the day and he wondered why the Highways Authority had no objection to the application. The Local Highways Authority representative stated that vehicles entering the site during peak hours when queues may occur were going to be tidal based, so for example the number of right turns in the morning would be relatively few compared to the evening and obviously departures in the evening would be few compared to arrivals. This was a relatively modest scale development of 32 houses and the amount of trips that this would generate was not going to be particularly large recognising the overall context of the highway network and the strategic allocation which this development formed part of. So, in terms of the ability of a vehicle to gain access to the site being obstructed by queuing traffic, the frequency of occurrence in his opinion was relatively small given the number of people entering the site and the queue and of course it was hoped that most drivers would be considerate with a road junction and leave a gap. Therefore the Local Highways Authority representative stated that he did not believe that the access would result in a sufficient capacity or safety reason to merit a refusal. A Member expressed concerns about future development with an access for 174 homes off Down Hatherley Lane when there was already traffic congestion in the area. The Local Highways Authority representative indicated that additional land had been safeguarded to allow for further junction improvements for ghost lanes for right turns should it be deemed necessary and whilst this did not form part of this proposal it was available for the future. Another Member asked about the land to the north of Down Hatherley Lane and whether there were any proposals for development on this site and he pointed out that as the application site was part of the Strategic A1 Allocation then there was the potential for another 4,000 to 5,000 extra traffic movements which was not mentioned in the Officer report which put a whole different aspect on the right turn situation. The Development Manager indicated that he was not aware of any proposals on the land to the north of Down Hatherley Lane which he believed was Green Belt whereas the A1 Strategic Allocation land had been removed from the Green Belt. In terms of the additional traffic arising from the A1 Strategic Allocation, that would have been taken into account within the traffic assessment for this site. The Local Highways Authority representative confirmed that the wider traffic generation had been accounted for within the plan period for the infrastructure delivery plan and within the overall consent that existed for the wider scheme. Whilst he understood the point being made, for 32 units it was fortunate to have been presented with a transport assessment statement which effectively looked at the wider picture even though the scale of this development fell well below the threshold which would normally provide such an assessment. The level of movements were considered to be relatively modest compared to the overall assessment which had already taken place and effectively had arrangements in place for mitigation. A Member questioned what a ghost lane was and the Local Highways Authority representative explained that it was a technical phrase for a right turn lane where there was a central island in which the vehicle would wait in the middle of the carriageway. The Planning Officer clarified that the “future access” off the Down Hatherley Lane access was indicative only and would be a matter for future consideration; it may be that it was not necessary and may become a cycleway or pedestrian way instead. The Development Manager reminded Members that access for future development would be determined at that time and it was necessary to determine each application on its own merits.

64.18         A proposal was put and seconded in accordance with the Officer recommendation and during the debate a Member expressed concerns about this site being taken in isolation, particularly in light of the discussions on the previous application where further trends down the road were taken into account; he felt that it was unfortunate that the Planning Policy Reference Panel had not met as it was due to undertake a review of the Green Belt which was why he had questioned the status of the land to the north of Down Hatherley Lane. Upon the motion being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of an agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.