Agenda item

Decision

Approved

Officer’s Report

The DM introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He established the sites location and context with its local setting as referenced in pages 41 and 42 of the report pack. The DM referenced P.35 – p.36 and confirmed that reserve matters for a not entirely dissimilar proposal had been approved with planning conditions discharged and development commenced. Officers were of the opinion that the extant conditions were material planning considerations that should attract significant weight in decision making. Further, the extant permissions also include a legal agreement which included a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing circa £55,000 as well as other contributions. The proposed S106 contributions were set out in pages 45 and 46 of the report.

Members were provided visuals of the previously approved site plan PO/16/1725 for context and to help identify the differences between the proposed and approved schemes. The DM advised that the main change was that the block of flats would be replaced with 10 single storey bungalows, further the internal layout of Sandpiper House had been changed with respect of the numbers of flats. The DM detailed the proposed elevations inclusive of CGI images, cross sections of the schemes and the relative levels of the land.

Officers considered that the proposal broadly complied with policy, and in circumstances where there had been a departure, Officers concluded that the existence of the implemented permission was a material consideration in which should be given significant. Therefore, the main issues for consideration were that of the effect on Flood Risk and Effect on Ecology.

 Since the drafting of the report a response had been received from the Council’s Ecology Officer raising no objection to the development on ecological grounds, however recommended the following three conditions; one relating to lighting design, another relating to a construction and environmental management plan, and lastly to secure the ecological enhancements set out in the applicant’s ecological appraisal. With the inclusions of such conditions Officers consider the proposal would accord with NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN9.

With respect of matters of Flood Risk, the applicant’s drainage engineers had reviewed the lead local authority comments and had subsequently provided an updated flood risk assessment and drainage strategy revision P02 (dated 14^th July) as well as the LLFA response. A response had not been received by the lead local flood authority, as they were only re-consulted 3 days prior. For context, the DM advised that a similar drainage scheme for the site had been approved by the Flood Authority in July 2020, Officers were therefore confident that matters could be resolved. The recommendation had been slightly amended to request delegated approval to the Assistant Director for planning subject to satisfactory resolution of surface water matters, securing S106 obligations to the value of £97,265 for the purposes set out in section 8 of the Officer’s report, as well as the imposition of conditions including any considered necessary by the Assistant Director.  Further, Officers were seeking to condition that Knoll Road be accessible for pedestrian use only, which the applicant was agreeable to. The DM noted that an occupancy restriction had been secured with the original permission, with Officers also seeking to secure an occupancy restriction as part of this decision.

Public Speakers

Alan Presslee – Supporting (statement recited)

Michelle Robinson –Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

1. The Local Member – Cllr L Withington – advised that she had referred the application to the committee to due public representations. She asked that the Committee consider the drainage system and whether they were content that it would not continue to a worsening of issues in the Knoll Road or Woodland Rise areas. The Local Members further asked Members to consider the adequacy of the proposed woodland management and the pathway onto North Knoll Road. Cllr L Withington affirmed that she did not consider herself to be pre-determined and that she would be voting on the application.

2. Cllr J Toye asked if pond protection orders existed and if this could be conditioned. Regardless, he was satisfied with the application and so proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation for approval.

3. The DM advised he was not familiar with the existence of pond protection orders, but that that Officers through planning conditions were seeking to ensure the implementation of the management plan which would include maintenance of the pond.

4. Cllr A Brown asked if there would be a service charge levied on each property as part of the maintenance of the common parts? The Applicant indicated there would be an annual charge.

5. Cllr V Holliday enquired whether the S06 contributions had decreased because the affordable payment seemed very low for a development of this size. Separately, she questioned the use of the glazing throughout the Sandpiper development which failed to align with the Councils policies on Light Pollution in the AONB. Cllr V Holliday considered the amenity space provided to the Bungalows to be minimal and below the recommended size, she expressed some reticence in approving what she considered to be slightly substandard housing.

6. The DM advised, with respect of S106 monies, that this figure was reflective of that produced in the applicant’s viability report when the original 2016 application. The viability evidence established that it wasn’t possible to produce on-site affordable housing, however off site and other provisions were considered. The £97,265 figure was supported by the Councils independent Viability Consultant to be reasonable, based on the evidence submitted. As part of the application, the Council had conditioned that the applicant must build out the scheme in the next 5 years, else be subject to submitting another viability appraisal. This had the potential increase or decrease S106 contributions.

In terms of other matters, the DM advised that the glazing and elevations were similar to that already approved. Officers were comfortable that garden areas, whilst small, accorded with NNDC Policies. He commented that with these properties being designed for older people, and reflected that this demographic didn’t necessarily always want to have big garden areas as this was something which needed to be managed and maintained. The applicant had responded to market conditions through the provision of amenity space.

7. Cllr V Holliday clarified it was the floor space, not garden, which was considered somewhat small. She enquired if GIRAM’s payments were part of a S106.

8. The DM noted P.46 of the Officers report and the tabled contributions including GIRAMs contributions.

9. Cllr A Brown expressed his support for the pedestrianised access conditions, but commented that it would have been useful that the full list of proposed conditions be somewhat settled and presented as a footnote. He questioned why drainage matters were outstanding, noting this was a longstanding issue.

10. The DM advised that changes in Flood Authority personnel had resulted in different legislation interpretations. He considered this was an evolving process which should hopefully be resolved soon.

11. Cllr A Brown thanked the DM for his guidance, and thanked the applicant in engaging with Officers and agreeing to an uplift clause. Cllr A Brown seconded the Officers recommendation for approval.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED

That Planning Application PF/22/1928 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.