Delegated conditional approval + Section 106 Agreement

The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and plans of the proposed development.  An update note had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting in respect of the following matters:

 

·         The applicant had confirmed that 17.5% affordable housing could be provided as a baseline across the development.  However, this did not take into account the necessity for a travel plan which would reduce the baseline to 16.5%.

·         An amended Parameters Plan and Masterplan had been provided, indicating an amended position for the hotel and public house slightly further south from the roundabout and additional planting at the frontage.  Officers considered that further amendment was required as the amendments allowed more room for potential misinterpretation at reserved matters stage and did not address the Development Brief expectation.

·         The revised Parameters Plan and Masterplan now indicated an area for a possible additional 0.5 ha for an extended school site.  Officers considered that this was acceptable.

·         Clarification as to how the amount of affordable housing could be increased in the event that Members considered that renewable energy provision and/or financial contributions for indoor sports provision could be compromised in favour of securing more affordable housing within the development.

 

The Major Projects Team Leader presented an amended recommendation, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application, subject to:

 

a.    Receiving a satisfactory amended Masterplan in respect of the hotel and public house area.

b.    Completion of a Section 106 Agreement in line with the requirements at Section 23 of the Committee report, which for the avoidance of doubt will include:

                      i.        A baseline of at least 16.5% affordable housing within each phase and

                     ii.        A contribution for indoor sports facilities enhancement.

c.     Delegated authority for officers to liaise with the applicant and seek improved viability in respect of building costs (as described within Section 24 of the report) to increase affordable housing contributions upwards from 16.5%.

d.    Conditions:

·         To include those listed as summaries set out in the report, which for the avoidance of doubt would include a Travel Plan (conditions 34 and 35 as listed) and 10% on-site renewable energy provision (condition 39 as listed); and

·         An additional condition relating to a Self Build and Custom Build Plot Passport; and

e.    Any other conditions that may be considered necessary at the discretion of the Head of Planning.

 

Public Speakers

 

Kirsty Clifton (supporting)

Chris Hatfield (supporting)

 

Councillor C Cushing, the local Member, stated that this was one of the most significant decisions in the history of Fakenham, which would increase the population of the town by 20%.  A travel plan was essential to ensure that bus routes worked properly and there was cycle and pedestrian access into the town, to ensure that the new development was integrated with the rest of Fakenham.  He referred to the concerns of the Town Council that the local centre should not rival the town centre and take trade away from it.  There would be a heavy demand for employment and consideration should be given as to how people could be incentivised to establish new businesses on the employment land to the east.  He considered that Norwich Long Lane should be two way to help the flow of traffic.  With regard to the proposed cycle route, he expressed concern that cyclists would be reluctant to cross the busy A148 and that Thorpland Road was narrow with hairpin bends.  He requested further discussions regarding Norwich Long Lane and the cycle route at the appropriate time.  He was pleased to see the amount of green space proposed and considered that pocket parks should be established.  He considered that parking provision for residents was good and that there should be no on-street parking.  He requested that affordable housing provision should be as high as possible and would welcome any opportunity to increase it at reserved matters stage.  He considered that the proposed development would have long term benefits for the town, but it needed to be carefully managed through its various stages.

 

Councillor J Rest, Member for Fakenham South, supported Councillor Cushing’s views.  He asked if it would be possible to integrate the sports facilities into the hotel development, which would incorporate the cost of those facilities into that part of the scheme and possibly enable the provision of more affordable housing.  He urged the Committee to approve this application.

 

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle was very disappointed that the scheme included only 10% renewable energy and asked if any of the development would be Passivhaus standard.  He referred to the Government’s intention to phase out gas boilers in new developments by 2025.  He asked if there had been any discussion regarding Community Infrastructure Levy tariffs.

 

Councillor N Lloyd referred to the impact of climate change on the coastline.  He was disappointed at the level of renewable energy provision, and considered it was unacceptable to further compromise renewable energy provision for additional affordable housing.  He noted and agreed with the support of Fakenham Members but considered that the climate change aspects of the proposal did not stack up.

 

Councillor J Toye also expressed concern regarding renewable energy, and suggested that all of the affordable homes should include renewables.  He asked if the standards would be reviewed at each phase to ensure that the development met or exceeded them, given that the development would be built over a 12 year period and gas heating would be phased out by 2025.  He asked if the developer was providing the school itself or only the land for it.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett asked if a visitor impact contribution would be expected.  The site was very close to the AONB and Marine Protected Areas, and there would be a huge impact in the summer months.

 

Councillor P Heinrich stated that a great deal of work had been done to get the application to this stage, which had involved compromise.  There were some issues regarding affordable housing and renewable energy.  He expressed concern at the layout of the hotel and considered that it would be a shame to put an unattractive building at the entrance to the town.  He asked if traffic monitoring would be carried out on the A148 as projected traffic growth could change and the problematic junctions needed to be kept under review.

 

The Chairman stated that matters of design were yet to be considered.

 

Councillor N Pearce expressed support for the scheme, but was concerned that affordable housing was being used as a bargaining chip.  He considered that renewable energy should be considered in more detail.

 

Councillor A Yiasimi considered that the proposed development and the town should be seen as one and asked if pedestrian access would be included.

 

The Head of Planning confirmed that pedestrian access was included as part of the connectivity in the Masterplan.

 

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks stated that she was incredibly disappointed with the amount of affordable housing being allocated.  She asked whether the dwellings would be socially rented or discounted.  She was also disappointed that the environmental aspects were being used as a bargaining chip.  Air source heat pumps had advanced and could be fitted to any property, and she was very surprised that this had not been suggested.

 

Councillor Mancini-Boyle stated that Passivhaus standards included heat source pumps, airtight buildings and recyclable solar panels. 

 

The Chairman stated that the build would take 12 years and some of the recommendations would be reassessed at each phase. 

 

The Officers responded to the issues that had been raised by Members.

 

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that every effort had been made to ensure there was cohesion with the local community and all links that would lead to the northern area of Fakenham had been exploited.  There was a paucity of links to the north of Fakenham on the opposite side of the bypass and the suggested cycle route had been put forward by the Norfolk County Council Rights of Way Team as an opportunity to improve access onto the quieter lanes.  A safe crossing would require the cutting back or removal of trees on the roundabout. 

 

There was insufficient adopted highway carriageway width to make Norwich Long Lane two way, and to do so would require a large amount of funding.  The impact of the proposed development was not so great as to require such works, but allowing southbound access only onto the roundabout would be a significant improvement and would help to alleviate concerns at the Wells B1105 junction with the A148.

 

With regard to the impact of the local centre on the town centre, the thresholds set by Local Plan policy would ensure there would be no impact on the town centre.  Floorspace and uses would be limited by condition to reflect what had been applied for.  However, the Government was increasing permitted development rights to allow more flexible uses of retail premises.

 

It was important to provide employment land and incentivise the take up of space.  The proposed Section 106 Agreement would require the land to be serviced in terms of access, utilities and connections, and to be marketed by the applicant for at least 5 years from the first phase to ensure there was maximum opportunity to take up the space.

 

The Major Projects Team Leader explained the proposed landscape features and stated that parking would be resolved by the Design Code.  Each reserved matters application would be required to satisfy the Design Code standards.

 

The Major Projects Team Leader explained that the current application would set the principle and parameters for the future, which included the amount of affordable housing that would be expected across the development.  There would be no opportunity to increase the amount at reserved matters stages, but viability could be reviewed ahead of every phase in a development viability reappraisal and, if development value had increased noticeably, there might be scope to provide more affordable housing or deferred financial contributions.  Approval of this application would establish 16.5% affordable housing as a baseline if the Travel Plan were accepted.  The affordable housing provision was policy compliant in terms of the tenure split, being 80% affordable rented and 20% intermediate tenure, preferably as shared ownership. 

 

The current application did not propose a sports centre and could not require sports facilities to be included in the hotel.  It had not been included in the Development Brief or within policy.  If a commercial operator of the hotel wanted to include such facilities they would be welcome to do so, but this issue could not be considered as part of the current application.

 

With regard to renewable energy issues, if the developer wished to propose a Passivhaus scheme or similar, it could happen within the requirements of the permission for the current application.  Policy EN6 required 20% renewable energy, which had been missed by officers when dealing with this application.  By the time the error had been noticed, the costings had been through a viability assessment and it was considered unreasonable to insist on 20%.  If the Committee required 20% renewable energy, it would come out of the Section 106 contributions and the Committee would have to decide which requirements would be compromised.  20% renewable energy would equate to the loss of 10 affordable dwellings.  The phasing out of gas boilers would be subject to Building Regulations.  The development would be required to meet Part L of the Building Regulations throughout its build.  It would be difficult to require the affordable housing to benefit from renewables.  However, it was often a requirement of funding for affordable housing that it should include renewable energy.  With regard to concerns that energy standards were being set now for a development of 12 years’ duration, planning permission had to be granted on the policies in place at the time so there would be no opportunity to revisit this matter.

 

With regard to the concern that affordable housing could be provided at the expense of renewable energy, the Major Projects Team Leader explained that renewable energy was only one of the matters that had been identified as a way of securing more affordable housing from the limited amount of Section 106 funding.  Policy required affordable housing to be delivered subject to viability and the level of provision was often impacted.

 

Norfolk County Council had requested an area of land to be provided for the school and possible nursery and a contribution towards the building costs, but the building itself was not included in the requirements.

 

A visitor impact contribution was included in the Section 106 contributions and the evidence base justified £205.02 to be paid per dwelling.  This would apply to every dwelling at every phase, and was a non-negotiable requirement to comply with the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment.

 

The design of the hotel would be considered under reserved matters, but the latest amendments gave additional comfort with regard to landscaping.  The Development Brief, Parameters Plan and Masterplan had identified that a landmark building should be required on either side of the access road.

 

With regard to traffic growth and monitoring, it would not be possible to revisit issues relating to traffic works in the future as the Committee had to consider the impact of the development as presented and its decision would dictate how the works would happen.  It was likely that any further growth in Fakenham would require traffic impact statements and monitoring, so this would be considered when applications were considered or as part of the Local Plan considerations for larger allocations.

 

The Major Projects Manager stated that there were many issues to consider as a planning committee and it was sometimes necessary to make compromises.  It was necessary to weigh the many benefits of the proposal against the reductions in affordable housing and other standards.

 

The Head of Planning explained that the Council did not currently operate a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  It operated the Section 106 model, which was generally best for large schemes such as this as it allowed the immediate mitigation of the harm that arose from a development.  CIL payments had to be held centrally and allocated across the wider District and they could possibly be drawn into County-wide schemes.  The use of a Section 106 Agreement was appropriate in this case.  It was compliant with the adopted local Plan and the immediate requirements to mitigate the local impacts of this development.   He summarised the main issues relating to affordable housing provision and renewable energy, and stated that in the opinion of officers, the recommendation before the Committee represented the best viable package of benefits.

 

The Principal Lawyer reiterated the comments of the Head of Planning with regard to CIL.  CIL could not guarantee that the supporting infrastructure would be delivered in tandem with, or at the appropriate phasing of, this development.  The Section 106 Agreement would ensure that the required mitigation was closely aligned with the impact.

 

It was proposed by Councillor C Cushing, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and

 

RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2

 

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application in accordance with the recommendation as presented by the Major Projects Manager and set out above.