To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the overarching S106 package between the three planning applications currently under consideration, which together constitute the first phase of development at the NW Cullompton urban extension.
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the overarching S106 package between the three planning applications currently under consideration.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the whole of the site and the 3 individual application sites and their relationship to the adopted masterplan. She provided a list of the S106 package and with them the masterplan trigger points and explained that it was proposed there would be 10% affordable housing across the whole of phase 1 with phase 2 being at a higher percentage. The affordable housing contribution had been reduced because of the high infrastructure costs and the contribution to the relief road. She highlighted the route for the link road which would be cross 2 of the 3 application sites and informed the meeting of the proposed offsite highway works to include footways and cycleways, sports pitch, play area and multi-use games area, the provision of upgraded public rights of way and health garden at Culm Valley Health Centre and financial contributions towards education, special educational needs and the expansion of the doctors surgery. She also outlined the financial contributions and obligations being proposed for phase 2 of the development.
The total package of the S106 agreement would be apportioned between the 3 applications, if 1 or 2 did not come forward, there would be a need to re-priortise.
The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration then responded to questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to the apportionment across the 3 applications, there would be a need to negotiate as the applications did differ. There had been no equalisation agreement between the applicants, so apportionment would take place via the S106 agreement. The applicants could of course challenge the S106 agreement during its negotiation or if there was a dilution of the agreement, the issue would be returned to the Planning Committee.
· With regard to some of the dwellings being below the National Space Standards on the Persimmon application, this formed part of the planning balance issue before committee members. With regard to insisting on the best, through negotiation officers had sort to do that.
· With regard to the wall at St Georges View, Mr Sorenson explained that it was hoped that this road would have a lesser status when the new road had been achieved and that it was proposed to look at the footpath and traffic management along Willand Road. A safety audit would take place and it was felt that a footpath and a crossing point could be achieved.
· With regard to the questions from Mr Powell, the urban extension had a broad range of policies which covered the green infrastructure, phasing and highway works. The adopted Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document set out how the extension would be delivered. The percentage of affordable housing was significantly less that the normal requirements and they would be 50% rent and 50% intermediate. The definition of affordable housing was in the National Planning Policy Framework. The price for the affordable dwelling would be 20% less than open market values. Self build properties were referred to in the Local Plan Review policies, but this was yet to be adopted; Phase 2 of the scheme could include self build. The railway station project was progressing but had not reached the stage where proposals were being costed, so a contribution to that project could not be sought from developers. The employment land was scheduled for phase 2. With regard to a low carbon, the development was proposed to have a fabric first approach with construction materials and values governed by Building Regulations.
· With regard to the link road, part of the road was in the outline applications with the initial part being within the Persimmon application, the phasing and delivery of the road was set out as described in the masterplan.
The meeting then took questions from Members of the Committee: with regard to: Whether Rull Lane would be used as a rat run through to the road to Tiverton and whether the contents of the S106 agreement could consider this. Mr Sorenson stated he felt the new road would take any pressure off of Rull Lane and gave details of the assessment that had identified potential rat runs, including details of timings to drive via Headweir Road and Saxon Way.
Questions from Ward Members with regard to:
· Confirmation of whether or not the 40 plus houses which were built a few years ago north of Tiverton Road within the CU1-6 allocation would be included when calculating the trigger points which relate to occupation of dwellings? Page 34 implies higher affordable housing delivery in Phase two will compensate for the reduction in Phase one, we have no guarantee that come Phase two there won’t be a viability argument made to reduce it again. How can we can accept that something which might happen in the future as justification for such a large departure from policy. The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration stated that yes, she thought the 40 dwellings on Olympian Way would be included, but she would double check. There was no guarantee over the affordable housing percentage within phase 2, there was potential for 20% affordable housing overall but there was no guarantee.
· Concern regarding the complexity of building the road and the danger of ending up with another road to nowhere if one of the applications ends up not being developed for some reason and not stumping up its share. What guarantee was there that this will not happen? The expectation that the application for the road to come in its entirety but we have applications for different sections and that gives the impression that the developers are not working together and that it will be built piecemeal as a means of opening land up for housing rather than the intention of delivering the road in its entirety at the earliest opportunity. Doesn’t piecemeal development of the road by different developers lead to a danger of all sorts of problems which could affect the timely delivery? The S106 exists to make development acceptable. Without the timely and complete delivery of the entire length of this road none of this development is acceptable.
With regard to the footpath provision Millennium Way
has no footway, that doesn’t stop people walking that route
though, either on the grass verge or the road itself. It is
something I have both observed and had comment made to me by
residents. There are bus stops along this road. It is not
acceptable that people should be expected to walk through sometimes
wet and long grass to access them. The Masterplan talks about
walkable neighbourhood principles and identifies a need for
‘new and improved off site pedestrian and cycle links’.
Creating a footway on Millennium Way would meet some of that need.
The following amendment was requested: Off-site highway works:
improvements to J28 of the M5, pedestrian footway and crossing in
Willand Road, pedestrian footway along western side Millennium Way,
in Saxon Way, Plantagenet Way, Tudor
Grove on existing roads where
further assessment deems it necessary.
If anywhere was to be used as a rat run I would have thought
Headweir Road would be a more attractive route, it is far
straighter and easier to negotiate. From the discussions over the
years I had also thought there was to be traffic calming in Willand
Road which is mentioned in this report but not in the
recommendation. I would therefore like
to see the requirements and locations for traffic calming
reassessed. The Head of Planning,
Economy and Regeneration stated that the cost of a footway
throughout the whole of Millennium Way would be £780K; the
applicant had offered a footway as far as the bus stop which would
cost £150k, contributions from developers was all about
priorities. Mr Sorenson responded stating that traffic calming
measures would be monitored and further measures could also be
included within phase 2 of the development if necessary
With regard to Ward Member consultation and the
delegated authority to be given to the Head of Planning, Economy
and Regeneration; does this not undermine the existing policy and
negate the spirit of Cllr Evans’ motion to Council next week
regarding seeking consultation and agreement with ward members/or
planning committee for changes to S106 agreements and the following
amendment was proposed: That delegated
authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Economy and
Regeneration in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of
Planning Committee and relevant ward member/s to negotiate
enter into a fall-back position in the S106 agreements that
seeks to prioritise and apportion S106 requirements in the event
that one or more of the planning applications in question do not
come forward for development. and brings
that back to Planning Committee for their consideration and
agreement/disagreement. The Head of Planning,
Economy and Regeneration stated that she was happy for any
re-negotiated positions to be brought back before the Planning
· The S106 is there to make this development acceptable. What is proposed is already not delivering everything that is required in the Masterplan policies. There is only so much you can take out before it renders the development unacceptable. We are at the limit in Cullompton of development without improvements to infrastructure, if one of the planning applications do not come forward for development and therefore doesn’t stump up their share of the S106, then that renders the whole lot undeliverable. Wasn’t that the point of having a Masterplan? The Ward Member objected to this recommendation because she thought that if there was a problem bringing any of these developments forward this is too big, affects too much and so many people in Cullompton that it should come back to planning committee and be dealt with in the public domain as it is today. she therefore requested members not to support the recommendation unless it is amended
At this point, the Chairman stated that she felt that a decision on the S106 package should take place following consideration of the 3 applications.
(i) * Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes;
(ii) The following late information was reported: Amendment to Recommendation 1, point 3) to refer to traffic calming in Saxon Way, Plantagenet Way and Norman Drive.
Officer comment- Tudor Grove incorrectly listed.
Further response from Highway Authority dated 9th April 2019.
I can confirm from a check scale of the drawings 432-100-01 rev B from PM Asset Management application 17/01346/MOUT and 1652/04 rev L from Persimmon Homes application 17/01178/MFUL, the plans show that the roads are aligned and are compliant to a through route.
The PM Asset Management plan shows the route to Willand Road and includes the necessary horse crossing to be built when the right of way is severed; this also allows for the road to be completed should Persimmon not develop their site and the triggers set for its completion are reached. However, this land is still within the ownership of Persimmon Homes. Therefore there needs to be a number of clauses in the legal agreements to cover all eventualities.
Within the Persimmon Homes Section 106 Agreement there needs to be a requirement that the horse crossing sited on PMAM land is constructed if the spine road is built out to the south west of the public bridleway necessitating its closure, and a clause which will allow PMAM to connect the road to the Persimmon built road if it stops short of the bridleway, without financial recourse. This should be reciprocal in the PMAM agreement too. Also there needs to be a clause which will allow PMAM or its successors, or MDDC, should the need arise, the ability to build the distributor road through to Willand Road if the completion date and triggers are activated. Similarly, should Persimmon build the route out to the south west of the right of way, they are able to build out the horse crossing on PMAM land. Such permissions should extend to drainage arrangements as well if it is to be a comprehensive cover. How you are to bring Codex into the equations for equity I am not sure; an agreement signed by all parties for the delivery of the distributor road would be the ideal solution.
Officer comment- These issues will be expected to be addressed in the detailed S106 provisions over the delivery of the new road.
16th April 2019
1. 3) Off-site highway works: improvements to J28 of the M5, pedestrian footway and crossing in Willand Road, traffic calming in Saxon Way, Plantagenet Drive and Norman Drive and footpath extension in Millennium Way to link to bus stops.
4. That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee and Ward Members to negotiate and enter into a fall-back position in the S106 agreements that seeks to prioritise and apportion S106 requirements in the event that one or more of the planning applications in question do not come forward for development.
5. That the S106 in respect of application 17/01178/MFUL also secure the provision of the community orchard, health garden and other public open space together with its long term management and maintenance.