Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning (with condition 6 being amended to refer to plot 38) and with an additional condition about wheel wash facilities. 

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 7 October 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.   

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this part of the site for 52 dwellings had reserved matters approval and the application sought to amend house types on part of phase one.  The proposal was to reduce some of the three storey dwellings to two storey with a range of terrace, semi detached and detached properties.  He highlighted the late observations where it was reported that condition 6 should refer to plot 38 and not plot 40 as was reported.  He added that the local Member had concerns about the impact of the development on the parking situation for the terraced properties adjoining the site and she felt that the developer should provide parking for these residents. 

                        Mr. J. Yorke spoke against the application.  He said that officers had advised Members not to fight the public inquiry in January 2013 on the basis of planning precedent and that Members had not been told that the planning condition imposed in September 2012 did not accord with what they had approved.  Members were not advised of the error when they considered the application in December 2012.  He spoke about accuracy and highlighted paragraph 7.06 which referred to 8 Bennetts Row; Mr Yorke said that this property did not exist.  On the issue of density, he said that this site was part of a previously approved Anwyl application but was by a different developer with a different application number.  He said that it must be ensured that approval did not create a precedent of non-adherence to the design brief of 35 dwellings per hectare as this part of the site was for over 41 per hectare.  Mr. Yorke asked that condition 2 be tightened as he felt that the wording would allow developers the opportunity to think that 41 dwellings per hectare was the new standard.  If this increase was allowed, it would result in 810 properties instead of the 683 permitted and he felt that the roundabout could not cope with the increase in traffic that this would create.  This would also increase traffic movements on Prince of Wales Avenue and Coed Onn Road.  He referred to the Localism Bill of 2012 and asked that assistance be given to the residents of Gardners Row and Bennetts Row by providing parking for them. 

                        Ms. L. Hawley spoke in support of the application as agent for the applicant.  She said that this site was part of Phase one and was land that benefited from extant outline and reserved matters approvals.  She said that Persimmon Homes wanted to amend house types to provide family homes on this part of the site which would result in the loss of three dwellings from the originally submitted application.  The density was under 35 dwellings per hectare with 10% being offered as affordable housing, and the type and tenure were satisfactory to Housing officers.  Persimmon had their own affordable housing scheme in place which allowed applicants to purchase 100% of their property for 80% with the remainder being a loan until the property was sold.  It was hoped that work on the site would commence early in 2014 and Ms. Hawley asked Members to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.               

            Councillor Christine Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor Alison Halford queried the comments of Mr. Yorke about inaccuracies in advice given to Members and whether the application would result in a density of over 35 dwellings per hectare which would lead to a total exceeding the 683 houses originally approved.   

            The local Member, Councillor Rita Johnson, said that this was a new application by a new developer and should therefore comply with current policies for 30% affordable housing.  She concurred with Mr. Yorke that the number of dwellings would increase to 820 if the density of 41 dwellings per hectare was agreed.  Councillor Johnson said that she had submitted a request in August 2013 for the provision of parking for Bennetts Row and this had been acknowledged in writing.  She asked that this be provided and that condition two on density be re-worded accordingly. 

            Councillor Derek Butler concurred about the wording of condition two and said that it inferred that the density would increase.  On the issue of parking for the residents of Bennetts Row, he asked that a request be submitted to Anwyl Homes, the original developer, and the Welsh Government to explore the possibility of removing the wall to create off road parking for the residents.  Councillor Carol Ellis supported the suggestion and requested that a condition be included to protect the residents from mud on the road during the development which would be a hazard to existing and new properties.  She referred to a similar development in her ward where a condition had originally been included to protect residents but when a different number was created for the site, the condition was not carried over to the new permission. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas referred to the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s policies on density and affordable housing which he said should be adhered to.  He said that on the site visit, Members had identified that off road parking had been created for residents on the other side of the roundabout and queried why it could not be provided for Bennetts Row.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas asked for clarification regarding the 30% affordable housing guideline and said that a condition had not been included about the maintenance of open space.  Councillor Mike Peers proposed that density be capped at 35 dwellings per hectare on this part of the site and expressed concern that it appeared that the affordable housing development did not even reach 10%.  He asked whether a section 106 obligation could be considered for provision of parking for the residents of Bennetts Row. 

            The officer said that density of 35 dwellings per hectare was a maximum across the whole of the site.  He said that it was reasonable for a developer to seek amendments for slight changes and reminded Members that the proposal would result in the increase of one dwelling on this part of the site compared to what had been previously approved.  He explained to Members that a Roman road had been discovered on part of the site and Anwyl had agreed not to develop in that area resulting in the loss of 20 to 25 units, some of which would be absorbed elsewhere across the site.  On the issue of affordable housing provision, this had been fixed at 10% when the outline planning permission had been agreed and so it would be unreasonable to seek to increase that figure as part of this application.  The wording on condition two was standard and re-imposed the safeguards already in place.  The officer explained that no provision for off street parking for Bennetts Row had been sought as part of the outline application and it would be unreasonable to impose it at this stage.  However, following the recent site visit, he had contacted Anwyl Homes and discussed this proposal with them.  Whilst they could not be compelled to make that provision, Anwyl’s had indicated that they would give it serious consideration as part of the access to Phase 2 of the development. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager said that an additional condition could be included for wheel wash facilities to prevent mud on the highway but that mud on the site roads could not be controlled during the course of construction..  The officer said that the maintenance of public open space would be subject to a legal agreement but could either be by a management company or by the Council; this was yet to be agreed. 

            On the issue of density, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the condition referred to the whole site of 683 and explained that the average density across the site had not changed.  There was nothing in the application to suggest that the number of units would increase to over 800 units and was therefore not for consideration by the Committee at this meeting.  

            In summing up, Councillor Christine Jones proposed including the condition suggested by Councillor Ellis for wheel wash facilities and she thanked the officers for their responses.  However, she said that Members had had ample opportunity to raise issues and added that she did not agree with new items such as off road parking for Bennetts Row being suggested each time an application for the site was considered. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning (with condition 6 being amended to refer to plot 38) and with an additional condition about wheel wash facilities.