711
Councillor Maclean (by reason of her previous acquaintance with members of the public in attendance at the meeting in respect of this application) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered a planning application for for 102 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), comprising 96 houses (2 - 2.5 storeys) and an apartment building with six units (3 storeys), associated car parking, cycle parking, public open space and pedestrian / cycle infrastructure, formation of pedestrian and cycle links and other associated works and improvements and an amended submission for 100 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), comprising 95 houses (2 - 2.5 storeys) and one building containing five apartments (3 storeys) with associated car parking at land north of Wyvern Farm, London Road, Stanway, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it was a major application, material objections had been received and residential development was proposed on land currently allocated for employment use.
The Committee had before it a report and an amendment sheet in which all information was set out.
The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Sue Jackson, Planning Projects Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Development Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Matt Parsons, on behalf of Persimmon Homes, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the proposals, which had been shaped following discussions with residents and planning officers, included 100 new homes with 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms and an apartment block including provision for wheelchair users, together with 20% affordable housing, in accordance with the Council’s adopted policy, new pedestrian and cycle links, 6,000 sqm. of open space and an equipped play area. He confirmed that the area to the south of the site did not form part of this proposal. In addition, a £250,000 contribution would be provided for Stanway Country Park, £165,000 to a community facility on Stanway Western bypass, £745,000 for the expansion of existing schools and £36,000 towards local NHS services. He acknowledged the need for disruption to existing residents during the construction phase of the development to be minimised and, accordingly a construction management plan would be agreed prior to commencement of the development. He also confirmed that a central landscape area would be provided prior to the commencement of phases 3 and 4 of the development. He confirmed that the scheme accorded with planning policy, the development was viable and the applicant was committed to its early delivery.
Councillor Scott-Boutell attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. She considered that the proposal would impact on residents of Stanway ward although the site was located in a neighbouring ward. She referred to Highways England’s view that the contributions from the Tollgate and Stane Park applications would deliver solutions to the traffic problems associated with junction 26 of the A12, she was of the view that it would be preferable for these improvements to be implemented at one time in terms of cost effectiveness and prevention of ongoing disruption to the public. As such, she acknowledged that the proposed Wyvern Farm development would have little impact on the A12 junction. She sought clarification in the event that the linked development did not go ahead or if there was a considerable gap between the two implementation dates and asked whether this would mean that the junction 26 improvements would not be implemented. She acknowledged that no objections to the application had been received from Highways England or the Highway Authority and she was concerned that these conclusions did not take account of failure of delivery of one of the schemes. She noted that contributions towards the monitoring of improvements to the Stanway Western Bypass / London Road roundabouts would be required before the occupation of any dwellings but she was concerned about the delivery of the highway improvements themselves before housing occupation and she asked that a further condition be provided to ensure highway improvement delivery. She also acknowledged that no request had been made for a safe pedestrian crossing by Essex County Council to enable residents from the development to access schools, GPs and jobs. She was also aware of a further contribution of £25,000 towards the Stanway Western Bypass / London Road roundabout improvement from the Stane Park Phase 2 development. She sought clarification regarding the £36,000 NHS contribution in terms of what it would be used for. She also referred to the proposed condition to provide for an acoustic barrier and sought clarification that this would not displace the noise channelling along the A12 and, as such, would not negatively impact local residents and she asked whether any dog bins were planned.
The Planning Projects Officer confirmed that the responses from Highways England and the Highway Authority had been set out in full in the report and she confirmed that it had been concluded that the proposed development, in its own right, did not require any further improvements to junction 26 and that the contributions negotiated for Tollgate and Stane Park would be sufficient for this development as well. She further confirmed that the Highway Authority contributions would be paid prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings and that no contribution had been required for a pedestrian crossing at London Road. She explained that NHS contribution would go towards local surgeries within the Stanway area. She confirmed that a new acoustic barrier would be provided within the site, along the edge of the existing trees to screen road noise from the A12 and would not replace any existing barriers.
One member of the Committee referred to the numerous developments which had taken place in Stanway in recent months and she regretted that the Committee’s previous request for a meeting with Highways Officers had not yet taken place. She also regretted the submission of proposals within the Stanway area in a piecemeal manner as she was of the view that a substantial and tangible improvement in traffic movement should be required to be provided for the benefit of local residents. She was of the view that the various contributions which had been negotiated for the numerous developments, relating to crossings, travel plans, schools, leisure now needed to come to fruition and schemes needed to be implemented. Concern was also expressed about the delayed delivery of the community facility. Reference was made to the first phase of development by Persimmon which had been approved by the Committee and was subsequently the subject to an amendment which had changed the development which was delivered. Complaints had also been received from residents of that development that Persimmon had not provided street signs prior to houses being occupied. She was of the view that the NHS contribution from that development was not sufficient to pay for an additional GP, yet GP appointments were still very difficult to get hold of. She was of the view that the construction traffic should not be permitted through the existing development and that no inconvenience and disruption should be placed on existing residents.
Another member of the Committee sought clarification regarding the location of the affordable housing on the site and sought assurances about future viability assessment of the development which may jeopardise delivery of the affordable housing element.
The Planning Projects Officer explained that the affordable housing element of the development was set out in detail in the report which was fully compliant with the Council’s policy for 20% affordable housing together with two units for wheelchair users. She gave an assurance that the application would be referred back to the Committee in the event that the applicant considered the development to be unviable in the future. She confirmed that it was proposed for officers to be delegated the authority to refuse the application if no progress was being made with the Section 106 Agreement within six months of the Committee’s decision. She explained that she was unaware of a request from the Committee for a meeting with the Highway Authority but she offered to make further enquiries, if that was required. The report also set out the details of the contributions which had been negotiated and which were all policy compliant and she confirmed that no suggestion had been made that the scheme may not be viable. She was aware that the trigger points for the contributions towards the provision of the community facility were approaching and efforts would be made to ensure those contributions would not be lost. She confirmed that a condition was proposed that street names were required to be put in place for dwellings which were occupied. The proposed route for the construction traffic had been proposed to be through the existing streets as the applicants did not have ownership of other land with which to direct the construction traffic.
Other members of the Committee asked whether it was possible to build a temporary access road to the site for the construction phase of the development and sought assurances regarding a noise barrier to mitigate disturbance from the traffic on the A12. The provision of affordable housing to the 20% ratio required in the Council’s policy was welcomed whilst assurances were sought in relation to the proposed number of parking spaces for the development.
The Planning Projects Officer explained that the proposed parking provision met the adopted parking standard, that is 2 spaces per unit plus 25% visitor parking which provided a total of 225 spaces and this was as proposed. She also confirmed that a new noise barrier was proposed at the back edge of the tree belt.
Another member of the Committee agreed with previous comments that legitimate concerns made by residents should be properly addressed by a developer. Some residents were being required to live with problems associated with poor build quality and lack of street signs. She considered the needs of residents should be properly taken account of and measures should be considered by the Committee to ensure that concerns are taken seriously and improvements are undertaken.
Members of the Committee generally considered that the Council needed to be more robust in ensuring that levels of affordable housing were maintained and not subject to future negotiations downwards on grounds of poor viability. Support was also given to the provision of an access road for construction traffic and, if this was not possible, that a duty be placed on the developer to repair any damage caused to the existing roads by the construction traffic.
Reference was made to the assessment of the proposal by the Highway Authority, whether there were criteria which had been used to make the assessment, such as a maximum number of houses which an access road could service, and the absence of the detail of this assessment in the report to the Committee.
The Planning Projects Officer confirmed that the comments of the Highway Authority on the proposal had been set out in full in the report to the Committee and that it had been concluded that the capacity of the existing road network was adequate to accommodate the traffic generated from the development. She explained that the Highway Authority assessment was based on the detailed transport survey which had been submitted with the application but, if further information or more clarity was required from the Highway Authority, this would need to be referred back to the Highways officers. She also confirmed that it was proposed that the construction traffic would use the two existing access points off London Road.
A request was made that the proposed condition providing for the construction traffic route to be amended to provide for a designated route utilising the second access point only and then along the edge of the site and for this route to be repaired at the conclusion of the development so it did not effect the existing development or inconvenience existing residents.
The Planning Projects Officer confirmed that it was possible to condition a designated route for the construction traffic but it would need to utilise a route of sufficient width to accommodate large construction vehicles and that it would also be possible to place a condition on the times of deliveries.
The Development Manager confirmed that proposed condition 3 could be amended to provide for the consultation of the three Marks Tey and Layer ward councillors on the agreement of a construction traffic delivery route.
The Chairman commended Persimmon Homes on the contributions which had been agreed within the proposed Section 106 Agreement. He acknowledged the request for a pedestrian crossing at London Road but accepted it was not possible for it to be delivered as part of this proposed development but asked that officers make a note that a pedestrian crossing at London Road be factored into future development negotiations, where relevant. He also referred to the concerns expressed by residents in relation to the performance of Persimmon in dealing with their complaints about poor construction and lack of road signs and he proposed that a letter be sent to Persimmon on behalf of the Committee to remind them of their obligations to residents occupying housing within their developments. He also considered that it would be helpful for a meeting to be arranged between the Highways Authority and the Committee members in order to clarify a number of issues.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that –
(i)
The Assistant Director Policy and Corporate be authorised to approve the planning application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amendment sheet, proposed condition 3 to be amended to provide for construction traffic delivery routes to be agreed following consultation with the three ward councillors for Marks Tey and Layer ward and with authority to make changes to the wording of those conditions, as necessary, and subject to the signing of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within six months from the date of the Committee meeting, to provide for the following:
•
Parks and Recreation: a contribution of £251,337 to be used towards the provision and/or maintenance of a wheeled sports facility and ancillary items at Stanway Country Park, with Open Space and fully equipped LEAP on site and a commuted sum would be required if the Council adopted the open space/LEAP;
•
Community Services: a contribution of £165, 000 to be used on phase 2 of the community centre on the Western Bypass;
•
Education: no early year’s contribution, primary contribution of £370,559.40 and secondary contribution of £375,293, totalling £745,852.40;
•
Archaeology: a contribution of £281;
•
Highways: a £25,000 contribution (index-linked) plus 2% (or up to £2,000) Section 106 agreement monitoring fee towards improvements at the Stanway Western Bypass/London Road roundabout to be paid prior to the occupation of any dwellings;
•
NHS: a contribution of £36,271
•
RAMS: a contribution of £122.30 per dwelling in accordance with the draft HRA Mitigation Strategy SPD;
•
Affordable Housing provision: twenty units as affordable housing including two wheelchair accessible units as set out in the table below:
House Type Reference
|
Beds
|
Number of Units
|
Floor Area
(sq ft)
|
Tenure
|
FT1 (wc)
|
1
|
1
|
667
|
Rent
|
FT2 (wc)
|
2
|
1
|
775
|
Rent
|
FT3
|
2
|
1
|
775
|
Rent
|
FT4
|
2
|
2
|
667
|
Rent
|
P
|
2
|
2
|
643
|
Rent
|
P1
|
2
|
1
|
663
|
Rent
|
P1
|
2
|
1
|
663
|
Intermediate
|
Q
|
3
|
3
|
811
|
Rent
|
Q
|
3
|
2
|
811
|
Intermediate
|
G
|
3
|
1
|
999
|
Rent
|
Q1
|
3
|
2
|
835
|
Rent
|
Q1
|
3
|
1
|
835
|
Intermediate
|
R
|
4
|
1
|
1168
|
Rent
|
M
|
4
|
1
|
1222
|
Rent
|
Total
|
|
20
|
|
|
•
The two bed ground floor apartment would be required to meet Part M4 Cat 3 (2) (a) adaptable with a wet room, so it could be suitable for a wheelchair user and the one bed ground floor apartment would be expected to meet Part M4 Cat 3 (2) (b) fully adapted and all other affordable homes (Excluding upper floor apartments) would be expected to meet a minimum Part M4 Cat 2 in lieu of lifetime homes.
(ii)
In the event that the legal agreement is not signed within six months from the date of the Planning Committee, Assistant Director Policy and Corporate be authorised, at their discretion, to refuse the application or otherwise be authorised to complete the agreement.
(iii)
A letter be sent to East of England Persimmon Homes from the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate, on behalf of the Planning Committee, with reference to community concerns around quality of build and site management issues and to remind them of their obligations to residents occupying houses within their developments.