Agenda item

Contact:                    Development Control Tel: (01452) 396783

The Senior Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an outline application for residential development of up to 85 dwelling units with means of access and public open space. (Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future consideration) – Revisions include the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed from 101 to 85 at the former Ministry of Defence Oil Depot at Hempsted Lane. He drew Members’ attention to the additional representations contained in the late material.

Patrick Downes, for the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Downes thanked Members for the opportunity to address the Committee and stated that the site had an extensive brownfield history. Members’ concerns had been discussed with Council Officers and dealt with. The number of dwellings proposed had been reduced significantly from 101 to 85.

The viability of the development had been assessed by Council Officers including the Section 106 obligations, the public open space which would benefit the local community and seven affordable housing units had been offered.

He noted that viability was a relevant planning consideration in the National Planning Policy Framework. He advised that the landscape character of the site had been reviewed as part of the evidence base of the Joint Core Strategy and had been classified as being of low sensitivity.

He stated that concerns regarding the pedestrian access to Honeythorn Close had been addressed and the viability package was based on current market conditions, accordingly, the applicant was prepared to accept a shorter period for implementation of the development.

Chris Stock, speaking on behalf of local residents, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Stock referred to the Council’s current consultation on the Statement of Community Involvement which stated that the Council accepts that local people have local knowledge and can provide a useful insight into local matters. He stated that the local insight was that approval of this particular application would be wrong. Local people were not against the development of this brownfield site and would prefer that to development of Greenfield such as that on land to the east of Hempsted Lane.

Residents believed that the current proposal was overdevelopment and noted that the reasons had been clearly explained in the 137 representations in response to this application.

He believed that the proposal contained too many units and would create a cramped appearance that would be out of character with existing housing development in the locality.  He believed that the proposal would encroach upon the setting of the listed Newark House and referred to Council guidance that had indicated that the site would be suitable for up to 30 units, which local residents accepted as a reasonable and balanced position.

He referred to the major impact on local infrastructure, including:

·         The volume of traffic using Hempsted Lane and regular congestion on the roundabout blocking access to and from the bypass.

·         No account has been taken of traffic generated by other recently approved developments.

·         An enlarged school would be attractive but there are existing problems with parking, access and egress.

·         Parts of the village continue to experience problems with the foul water sewerage system which would be added to by this development.

·         Opening up pedestrian access to Honeythorn Close would have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties. The need for a barrier to prevent vehicular access was questioned if the access was pedestrian only.

Mr Stock noted that the Council was under pressure to secure a 5 years plus 5 per cent land supply and that this development would be attractive to the Council as it could be delivered in the short term.

He stressed that residents were not trying to stop development from happening but were trying to stop a flawed development happening in the wrong place, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

The Chair questioned the proposed pedestrian access through Honeythorn Close and he was advised that the access would provide a dry access in times of flood and the barrier was to prevent mopeds or similar vehicles using the access.

Councillor Lewis stated that development of the site was expected and did not believe that the proposal was overdevelopment. He referred to the proposed public open space which was not presently available to the community.

The Chair referred to the section 106 obligation for education and noted that although the proposed density was higher than the surrounding area he did not believe that it was overdevelopment. He expressed concerns regarding the number of affordable housing units to be provided but accepted that contamination issues affected the viability of the proposal.  He believed that the public open space would benefit the people of Hempsted.

Councillor Hilton questioned whether the revised proposal was a reduction in density as well as in number of dwellings proposed. He noted that the proposed road would facilitate potential further development of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the reduction from 101 ton 85 units was on the same site area. He explained that there were concrete silos on part of the site and the cost of removal would be prohibitive and that part of the site would encroach on the setting of Newark House. He also confirmed that the pedestrian access would provide a dry route for pedestrians when other routes were unavailable due to flooding.

Councillor Chatterton referred to the density of development and traffic. He asked if the traffic analysis had taken account of developments approved but not yet implemented. He was advised that the analysis dated January 2014 had taken into account commitments but noted that the National Planning Policy Framework required a severe traffic impact to support a refusal.

Councillor Toleman believed that the site was in need of development and that current application represented a great improvement on the original proposal for 152 dwellings. He had been surprised that the previous refusal had not been taken to appeal and believed that refusal of the current application would result in the Council facing costs in the event of an appeal.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report and the satisfactory and timely completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the Heads of Terms detailed in the report.