Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Erection of 44 dwellings with roads, infrastructure and landscaping (previously 46 dwellings; revised scheme as per amended plans and supporting information received on 26 August 2016) on land adjacent to Newark Farm, Hempsted Lane.

Councillor Morgan, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration and determination of this item.

Councillor Tracey, having declared an interest in this application due to pre-determination withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration or determination of this item.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the erection of forty-four dwellings with roads, infrastructure and landscaping (previously forty-six dwellings; revised scheme as per amended plans and supporting information received on 26 August 2016) on land adjacent to Newark Farm, Hempsted Lane.

He drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained the detailed comments of the Highways Authority who raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions, three further objections and clarification of how the heritage impacts of the development are to be assessed.

Councillor Melvin as Member for Westgate Ward addressed the Committee.

Councillor Melvin stated that regardless of the proposed distance between the new and existing houses, the residents, many of whom were approaching the quiet years of their lives, enjoyed views that would be lost as a result of this development.

They had requested a bund together with an evergreen hedge but she believed that a development of bungalows would be more appropriate. She stated that some residents wished to down-size their properties and bungalows would have a ready market in Hempsted.

She questioned whether the development was sustainable as the school was full, there was no surgery and bus services were limited.

She referred to the affordable housing proposed and noted that many of the future occupiers may not be able to afford motor cars and she questioned how they would be able to take their children to school.

She noted the lack of infrastructure and hoped that following the adoption of the City Plan greenfield sites would not be developed while brownfield sites were available.

She believed that this proposal was driven by the need for social housing but there was a need for infrastructure.

In conclusion, she noted that the Council was required to make savings of £1.3 million in the current year and there would be no money available for the Council to maintain the proposed public open space.

Lisa Jackson, planning consultant and member of the RTPI addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mrs Jackson stated that she was a planning professional and was representing the objectors to the application. She made the following points:-

·         The application had not demonstrated that the public benefits outweighed the harm to the historic environment.

·         The impact on the historic environment was not acceptable and would cause major harm to the setting of Our Lady’s Well and Newark House.

·         The development would cause loss of views

·         Loss of ridge and furrow and damage to historic earthworks

·         Case law proved a presumption against planning permission

·         No assessment had been made of views in wintertime

·         In accurate photo-montages had been provided

·         The open space offered was not a public benefit as it provided no play facilities

·         The primary school was full and children would not be able to walk to school

·         The application rode rough shod over the Neighbourhood Plan

·         Newland Homes had not engaged fully with residents

·         Sustainability is questionable

·         The only public benefit was a small amount of affordable housing

In conclusion, she asked, that should the Committee be minded to grant consent, the thirteen houses in the no development zone should be removed.

Tom Sheppard, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Sheppard thanked Council Officers for their input. He noted that the application had been reduced to forty-four homes and the applicant had responded to the concerns of the Conservation, Archaeological and Urban Design Officers.

The nearest dwelling was sixty-five metres from Newark House and the nearest dwellings had been reduced in scale. The applicant had been guided by the heritage assessment and he believed that there was no significant adverse impact on Newark House.

He stated that there has been a full archaeological survey where housing was proposed and a ten metre buffer would protect the historic earthworks.

The views to the Malverns and Robinswood Hill were protected and development had been confined to the lowest part of the site. The proposed development to the west was of a lower density.

There was a separation distance of forty metres to existing houses including a separation bund.

In conclusion he stated that the applicant had adopted a low density high quality approach to the development which would deliver nearly forty per cent affordable housing and the planning obligations of the Section 106 agreement.

The Chair questioned the status of Hempsted Neighbourhood Plan. The Principal Planning Officer referred to paragraphs 6.23-25 of his report and the Development Control Manager advised that the plan appeared to be in abeyance and was not ready for publication for consultation.

A Member expressed concerns regarding the garages close to the existing dwellings. He was advised that garages would have flat roofs to minimise impact. The area of land in the top right hand corner would be a balancing pond.

Another Member was advised that the public open space would be protected for such use.

The Principal Planning Officer advised  that the proposed affordable housing mix was supported by the Council’s Housing Officer and had been tailored to meet local need.

A Member was satisfied that the archaeological impacts of the proposed development would not be harmful because the City Archaeologist raised no objection to the proposal

The Chair stated that given the Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply, the major issue appeared to be balancing the benefits of the proposed development with the harm to the setting of Newark House. On balance he was in favour of the application.

RESOLVED that

1)    Subject to the recommendations of the Highway Authority being appropriately addressed and the conclusion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the obligations listed at paragraph 8.2 of the report, planning permission be granted with appropriate conditions; and

2)    The Development Control Manager be authorised to prepare the required conditions and the detailed wording of the Section 106 legal agreement.