Agenda item

Delegated conditional approval + Section 106 agreement (or refusal if Section 106 is not completed)

Public Speakers

Roger Swift (Southrepps Parish Council)

Stephen Hall (objecting)

Graham McCabe (objecting)

Faith Davies (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer (JM) presented the report and an addendum giving an updated position as of 7 January 2020.  As a further update, he stated that the tenure of the proposed dwellings should be 60% for affordable rent and 40% for shared ownership.  Two further representations had been received following publication of the addendum which did not raise additional concerns.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, including the road network and visualisations of the landscape impact in 15 years’ time.  He presented an amended recommendation as set out in the addendum and amended above.

Councillor N Pearce, the local Member, stated that he wished to hear the Committee’s views before commenting on this application.

Councillor T Adams confirmed with the Chairman that he could speak but not vote on this application.  He asked for confirmation that there was sufficient width of highway verge to provide a footway.   Having seen the highway boundary maps, he had some concerns regarding the deliverability of the footway given the narrowness of the highway verges.  He stated that the kerbing on Long Lane as existing did not provide a continuous accessible footway and there did not appear to be proposed conditions to resolve the matter. He also requested clarification that the Highway Authority had lifted its technical objection.  He considered that a site inspection would be of benefit to Members who had not previously visited the site.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that condition 5 required details of the footway to be provided, which would need to be agreed by the Highway Authority.  Other conditions related to highway improvements which would also need to be agreed.  He confirmed that the Highway Authority had removed its technical objection and now supported the scheme subject to conditions.  These conditions had been included in the addendum.

Councillor Adams considered that there was no certainty as to whether the issues could be resolved or information to demonstrate that the footway was deliverable.  He considered that this was an important issue given the increase in the number of wheelchair users who would be using the footpath.

As a point of clarification, Councillor J Rest pointed out the difference between the requirement for affordable housing across the District, which was infinitesimal, and need which as at January 2020 stood at 2864 affordable dwellings across the District.  He considered that any development that delivered the right number of affordable dwellings to help address the need was the most important consideration and that this development should be approved.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that the applicant had worked hard to resolve the highway issues and had arrived at a solution, although it was not perfect.  He supported Councillor Rest’s comments with regard to the huge need for affordable dwellings in the District.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he understood the objections that had been made on highway grounds.  However, there was a desperate need for more affordable housing throughout the District.  Although the site was allocated for approximately 10 dwellings, he considered that 15 dwellings was low density compared with some developments and a private developer would seek a much higher density.  He considered that the proposed landscaping improvements were quite good.  He considered that the highway and parking improvements, although not ideal, were the best that could be achieved given the constraints of the site.  He referred to the long list of constraints and condition that were proposed and he considered that on balance, the need for affordable housing should take priority.

Councillor N Pearce, the local Member, stated that this was a complex and lengthy application.  He referred to the Council’s duty to protect the natural heritage.  The need for small developments in villages had been recognised in the Local Plan.  The proposed development would result in 15 affordable homes, including shared ownership, which would remain affordable in perpetuity.  He considered that a market development could lead to the dwellings becoming second homes, and referred to the need for affordable housing outlined in the report.  He stated that the proposed development was very low density and the single-storey element of the scheme would mitigate the possibility of invasion of privacy.   He considered that there was a need for this development and  local villages had to contribute towards the provision of new homes.  He supported the application.

It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, seconded by Councillor J Rest and

RESOLVED by 13 votes to 0 with 1 abstention

Part 1:

Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:

1)    Receipt of improved and amended boundary treatments and landscaping

2)    Receipt of  improved layout to accommodate Highways requirements of 07/01/2020

3)    Satisfactory completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to cover the following:

·       Improvements to the Public Right of Way (Southrepps Public Footpath 18) £75 per dwelling (total £1,125)

·       Provision of all 15 houses for use as General Needs affordable housing, including 60% Affordable Rent and 40% Intermediate Tenure (preferably Shared Ownership)

·       Public Open Space contributions of £25,442 in total comprising: Allotments £6,810; Play enhancement £4,800; and Parks £13,832

·       SPA / SAC visitor impact mitigation contributions £50 per dwelling (total £750)

4)    The imposition of the appropriate conditions to include:

1.     Time Limit – three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted

2.     The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the plans

Pre-commencement

3.     Construction Management Plan including temporary parking for construction personnel on site

4.     Demolition of the existing garages and the provision of a footpath from Long Lane Estate to the High Street

5.     Details to be agreed for the provision of a footpath from Long Lane Estate to the High Street as per submitted plans, and completion of the path prior to first occupation.

6.     Promotion of Traffic Regulation Order

7.     Detailed plans of the roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage

8.     Provision of all highways improvements – modifications to Long Lane Estate and widening to Long Lane (Junction with Long Lane Estate)

9.     Materials to be agreed: External bricks and tiles, windows and doors, external finishing.

10.  Materials to be agreed: Boundary treatments including detailed designs

11.  Details of providing the Category M4 2 dwellings on site

12.  Drainage scheme to take into account topography of the site

13.  Finished floor levels informed by the Drainage Strategy and site sections (details to be agreed)

14.  Soft Landscaping Plan (to also prevent ad hoc parking on Public Open Space)

15.  Soft Landscaping Management and Maintenance plan

16.  Hard Landscaping details

17.  Hard landscaping Management and Maintenance Plan

18.  Minerals /aggregate materials – details of how on-site resources will be recycled

19.  Renewable Energy Details to be agreed and installed in accordance with the approved details

20.  Car Park management plan

Pre-Occupation

21.  All works carried out on roads, footways, foul and surface water sewers within the estate

22.  Provision of Open Space

23.  Open Space Management and Maintenance Plan

24.  Small mammal access in fencing

25.  Provision of Bird Boxes and Bat Boxes as recommended by the Preliminary Ecological Survey

26.  Restrictions on any external lighting

27.  Obscure glazing, where appropriate

28.  Prior to the occupation of the final dwelling, all works to the roads, footways, foul and surface water sewers shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans

And any other conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning

Part 2:

That the application be refused if a suitable section 106 agreement is not completed within 3 months of the date of resolution to approve, and in the opinion of the Head of Planning, there is no realistic prospect of a suitable section 106 agreement being completed within a reasonable timescale.