To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to this application.
The Committee had before it * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that this was a full application which wrapped around the existing health centre on Willand Road. She identified the layout of the site, the location of the spine road, the parallel parking bays, footway and cycle routes, the site of the attenuation ponds, the houses orientated across the site, the school site, the tree line that would be protected and the community orchard and health garden. She highlighted the road access and the priority road changes proposed, the detail of the retaining walls, the street elevations, the layout of the dwellings, site sections, house types, garages and bin stores and provided photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The management plan for the attenuation ponds
· Disappointment with regard to the need for quality design to a specific standard which was not the case
· Lack of provision of renewable energy, ie solar or carbon saving schemes
· Concern with regard to the size of the “Almouth” house design and the size of the gardens
· Electric car charging points
· The views of the applicant with regard to the layout and topography of the site, the access to the sites and detail of the attenuation ponds
· The view of the Town Council with regard to concerns for access to the school site and traffic issues at busy time and whether there would be parking provision at the school
· The view of the Ward Member with regard to the parallel parking spaces on the roadside, were these within the curtilage of the 6.5m road width or in addition? If within the 6.5m road width this was not acceptable we would end up with another Kingfisher Reach with the width of the road diminished by parked cars when we have said all along this road needs to be to the standard of a distributor road. Would there be tree preservation orders on the trees on site? Would there be a condition with regard to preventing netting to stop bird nesting. 47 of the 200 homes were below the national space standard that was 23.5%. Do we want to see a development of rabbit hutches on this site? Small living spaces have an impact on wellbeing and quality of life and can impact on mental health and family relationships. Certainly those that are 10 square metres below standard were not acceptable. NSS should be a minimum requirement. She expected better from a company which made more than £1billion in profit last year and declared on its website that it “places great importance on the contribution the company makes to the communities it serves”. 10% affordable housing delivery was not good enough and neither were substandard house sizes.
· The concerns of the adjacent Ward Member with regard to the lack of renewable energy on the site, she felt that the community health garden should come forward before building took place, the 10% affordable housing on the site was not acceptable, the design was bland and uninteresting and too many of the houses did not comply with the SPD, she felt that the scheme felt short of what was expected with regard to design and space.
· It was felt that the application would look like little boxes on the hill side.
· General views on the parking calculation, the design issues the lack of affordable housing, the lack of cycling provision, concerns with regard to the S106 agreement, the cost of the proposed footways.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred for further negotiation to take place in relation to the percentage affordable housing, renewable energy, the size of dwellings in relation to the National Space Standards, parking provision, layout, property design, design quality, cycle route provision and access/egress to the school site.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
i) Susanna Knowles spoke as applicant;
ii) Cllr Smith spoke on behalf of Cullompton Town Council;
iii) Cllr Mrs N Woollatt spoke as Ward Member;
iv) Cllrs Mrs A Berry and Mrs E M Andrews spoke as adjacent Ward Members;
v) Further response from South West Water dated 12th April 2019
As a result of changes to our charging policy introduced in April this year which has increased the connection charges in relation to new developments any improvements required to upgrade our infrastructure are to be funded by South West Water and not developers.
In view of this the request for planning conditions as stated in my response to the application are no longer required as improvements to the foul drainage network will be delivered by South West Water to ensure the development can be supported without detriment to the public foul drainage systems.
Condition 26 should therefore be deleted.
Condition 15: The reason for condition 15 is missing from the conditions schedule. The reason should read:
15. To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan.
All subsequent reasons within the conditions schedule should be re-numbered accordingly.
Condition 20: The drawing number to be inserted in this condition is 453-P-600 Rev E.
16th April 2019 – Amended recommendation
Grant permission subject to conditions and the prior signing of a S106 agreement.
vi) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.