Agenda item

Contact:                          Development Control    Tel: (01452) 396783

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed an outline planning application for residential development of site, open space including orchard, cycleways, footpaths, and associated works. Means of access offered for approval (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration) on land east of Hempsted Lane.

He referred to the late material and advised that 50 units were now envisaged and he displayed an indicative layout and visualisations that had been supplied by the applicant.

Tim Partridge, planning agent for the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Mr Partridge stated that there were no sound planning reasons to refuse the application which had been the culmination of 14 years work by the charity and the site had emerged as part of the work on the draft City Plan.

He noted that the application had been reduced from an original 60 dwellings to 50, and would deliver 40 per cent affordable housing. A buffer of 14 metres from Hempsted Lane had been included to separate the development from the Conservation Area together with a 10 metre green link to the east side.

Half of the site would be developed and the remainder would be dedicated as public open space. This land, which had previously been private, would be open to the public and the orchard would be retained and enhanced.

The development would enhance the experience of the area including the Conservation Area, and the delivery of housing would help meet the City’s need, in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to significantly boost housing supply. The Landscape Conservation Area policy had been overtaken by emerging policy and could be given only limited weight, and there was, in fact,  low/medium landscape sensitivity.

He advised that the Section 106 obligations also included a contribution to education which would enable the much needed extension to Hempsted School.

Ray Dyer, Secretary of Hempsted Community Forum, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. 

Mr Dyer stated that the Forum was in the process of producing a neighbourhood plan for Hempsted and granting the application would overthrow policy which had been in place for 20 years. He noted that the National Planning Policy Framework was not just concerned with the delivery of housing but was designed to encourage sustainable development.

He noted that the application would result in the loss of green fields and he referred to the Council’s Conservation Officer’s comments in the report. The application was contrary to the findings of the WSP report and had previously been considered unsuitable for development in the Strategic Assessment of Land Availability. A Medieval ridge and furrow field system would be lost. It was considered that the report failed to give sufficient weight to environmental issues.

He stated that the Forum disagreed with the landscape assessment and called for the retention of the field immediately to the east of Hempsted Lane. He noted that the WSP appraisal considered that the applicant’s appraisal may not be supported at public inquiry. He believed that the application was not infilling as the term was usually used for much smaller developments. He also noted that a 5 year housing land supply could be demonstrated.

Councillor Hilton considered that on the face of it the proposal looked good, and questioned what the normal level of public open space requirement would be.  He queried that if the application was approved, would that land come to the City Council; and added that while it looked good now, could that provision be revisited and a different arrangement end up occurring.  He was advised that the public open space would be adopted under the terms of the Section 106 Agreement and the green links and extent of residential development would be secured by condition. The Environmental Planning Service Manager advised that the usual start point for negotiation would be 2.8 ha per 1,000 population and the application included significantly more public open space than would usually be expected. He was also advised that although those terms would be secured in this application, there was nothing to stop further applications for the site being made to alter the arrangements, which would have to be considered at that time.

The Chair asked about the SHLAA process and was advised that the site had been included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2012 as part of the Joint Core Strategy work and was considered to be suitable, available and achievable. In terms of the WSP appraisal of the application, the Environmental Planning Service Manager confirmed that there were some deficiencies but that it was considered to be, on balance, a proportionate response to the scale and sensitivity of the proposal.

Councillor Toleman believed that should the application be refused, the applicant would lodge an appeal which could result in the local taxpayer having to face costs, and that more houses could be proposed and proposed public open space could be lost.

The Chair believed that 40 per cent affordable housing was a significant achievement, the  housing would support the Joint Core Strategy requirements, and the proposed density was good, as was public access to the orchard and other open space.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the terms set out in paragraphs 6.134 – 6.142 of the report.