Agenda item

            That condition No. 3 attached to the outline planning permission ref. 035575 be varied to allow 7 years for the submission of reserved matters from the date of outline planning permission being granted.  That all previous planning conditions attached to the outline planning permission are re-imposed and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to re-impose all the requirements of the original legal agreement attached to the outline planning permission, with 30% being substituted for 10% for affordable housing:

• Scheme to be in general conformity with the Revised Development Brief,
• Construct or to reimburse the Council for the reasonable cost of a footpath/cycleway linking the site with Leadbrook Drive,
• Phasing/occupation of housing,
• Setting aside of 1.5 hectares of land and its transfer for a school site and an extension to the school site of not less than 1.0 hectare,
• Setting aside of land for a shop site,
• Setting aside of a site of 0.45 hectares for a health centre,
• Setting aside of a site of 0.25 hectares for a community centre and its transfer
• Provision of 4.5 hectares of open space including an enclosed equipped children’s play area, a landscape strategy, a management strategy for open space areas including establishment of a management company
• Provide for a maximum of 30% of number of dwellings for affordable use

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23 July 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.   

            The officer said that following on from the vote on the previous application, this report proposed to vary condition 3 and update the conditions. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that there was still an extant permission on the site and that it was not unusual to ask for additional time. 

            Mr. J. Yorke spoke against the application saying that outline permission had been granted in July 2004 with the Section 106 agreement being signed in 2006.  He said that the reserved matters application should have been submitted within 5 years of the date of the agreement being signed.  He referred Members to the previous application where it was reported that the applicant had indicated that if this application was approved, then the non determination appeal would be withdrawn and serious consideration would be given to not applying for an award of costs against the Council for unreasonable behaviour; he felt that this was unacceptable and set a precedent.  He referred to condition 2 and said that new information on this had been received earlier this week and he also spoke of the traffic survey which had been undertaken.    

            Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, confirmed that extant planning permission was in place and that the application was seeking to extend the time for the reserved matters to June 2013.  The Committee had considered its stance on the appeal in the June 2012 meeting of the Committee and he reminded Members that this application was identical.  He said that he had been authorised by the applicant to say that if the application was granted, there would be no application for costs against the Authority.  He added that there was no logic in continuing to defer the application as there were no objections to the original one. 

            The local Member, Councillor R. Johnson, spoke against the application and said that she did not feel that the application should be approved as the consent was out of date.  She said that the site had been allocated for 700 houses but at this time there was no evidence that the developer wanted to proceed with building the houses.  She said that the Authority had a duty to deliver the houses up to policy requirements and that currently less than half of the site had been allocated and none of the proposed houses had been built. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom highlighted paragraph 1.06 on Section 73 and also referred to circular 35/95 Section 4 which explained that a reserved matters application could not be re-approved.  He felt that there had been a significant amount of change in planning guidance since the application had been submitted and highlighted in particular the provision of 10% of dwellings for affordable housing when the policy now required 30% affordable housing.  He said that the application complied with policy HSG2 but not with energy standards and proposed that the application be refused. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the recommendation and suggested that it should be brought up to date to reflect that guidance indicated that 30% affordable housing should be provided. 

            Councillor Heesom put forward an amendment to defer the application and await the decision of the Inspector.  He added that he wanted the development to occur on this site.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that this was not a valid amendment as it had been resolved on the previous item that this application would be determined at this committee . 

            In response to a query from Councillor A.M. Halford, the officer drew Members’ attention to the section 106 agreement detailed in the resolution where it was reported that in lieu of an educational contribution, 1.5 hectares was to be set aside and transferred for a school site with an extension to the school site of not less than 1 hectare.     

            Councillor C.A. Ellis referred to paragraph 1.05 and queried whether the legislation applied in Wales.  In response, the Head of Planning said that the Welsh Government (WG) were in the early stages of drawing up a planning bill, so Members should not assume that what happened in England would not apply in Wales.  Councillor Ellis also asked why the condition on affordable housing could not be changed from 10% to 30% to bring it in line with current guidance.  The officer responded by referring Members to paragraphs 7.05 and 7.06 where it was reported that an agreed Development Brief for the site stipulated that a maximum of 10% affordable housing would be required on the site. 

            The officer said that this was a duplicate application and the outline planning permission which was granted in 2006 would expire in July 2013 so was extant and live.  On the issue of affordable housing, he said that the Committee had resolved not to oppose the application which was subject to appeal and that the Council’s stance was to apply the requirement for 10% affordable housing. 

            Councillor Heesom proposed that the figure for affordable housing in the Section 106 Obligation reported in the recommendation be amended from 10% to 30%, which was duly seconded. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that this was an extant permission.  He added that policies had changed and had been developed but the conditions which were applied at the outline application stage could not be amended and said that current policies could not be applied retrospectively. 

            Councillor Heesom requested a recorded vote to approve the application with the affordable housing element being amended to 30% and was supported by the requisite five Members.  On being put to the vote, planning permission was granted by 14 votes to 7 with the voting being as follows:-

FOR – GRANTING PLANNING PERMSSION WITH 30% AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING REQUIRED

Councillors: C.A. Ellis, D. Evans, J. Falshaw, V. Gay, A.M. Halford, R.G. Hampson, P.G. Heesom, R.B. Jones, R. Lloyd, M.J. Peers, N. Phillips, H.G. Roberts, N.R. Steele-Mortimer and W.O. Thomas

AGAINST – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION WITH 30% AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING REQUIRED

Councillors: R.C. Bithell, D. Butler, D. Cox, I. Dunbar, C.M. Jones, M. Lowe and D.E. Wisinger

            RESOLVED:

            That condition No. 3 attached to the outline planning permission ref. 035575 be varied to allow 7 years for the submission of reserved matters from the date of outline planning permission being granted.  That all previous planning conditions attached to the outline planning permission are re-imposed and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to re-impose all the requirements of the original legal agreement attached to the outline planning permission, with 30% being substituted for 10% for affordable housing:

• Scheme to be in general conformity with the Revised Development Brief,
• Construct or to reimburse the Council for the reasonable cost of a footpath/cycleway linking the site with Leadbrook Drive,
• Phasing/occupation of housing,
• Setting aside of 1.5 hectares of land and its transfer for a school site and an extension to the school site of not less than 1.0 hectare,
• Setting aside of land for a shop site,
• Setting aside of a site of 0.45 hectares for a health centre,
• Setting aside of a site of 0.25 hectares for a community centre and its transfer
• Provision of 4.5 hectares of open space including an enclosed equipped children’s play area, a landscape strategy, a management strategy for open space areas including establishment of a management company
• Provide for a maximum of 30% of number of dwellings for affordable use