Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of previous reserved matters approval 10/00467/REM to allow for an amended layout and house types (133 dwellings) on Area 4A2 on Framework Plan 4, Kingsway.

 The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed an application for the variation of conditions 1 and 2 of the previous reserved matters approval 10/00467/REM to allow for an amended layout and house types (133 dwellings) on Area 4A2 on Framework Plan 4, Kingsway.

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to the late material which contained an update on some of the outstanding issues and the consultation response from the Highway Authority. She advised that her recommendation remained unaltered.

She noted that there were still concerns relating to the mass of parking proposed along the SUDS buffer and the cluster of the larger affordable housing units. She stated that having all the larger houses together results in a high density of residents within a small area which was not ideal.

She noted that the distances between properties had been improved and the applicant was aiming to achieve a distance of 20 metres in most but not all cases. She considered that the flat over garage appeared to be hemmed in and noted that the possibility of relocating the bus stop was being investigated.

She required further explanation regarding the variations in levels when comparing the approved and now proposed scheme. She welcomed the provision of a bungalow and advised that one ground floor apartment would be a single bedroom mobility unit and there would be another two bedroomed mobility unit as well.

Mr Ian Drew, Design and Planning Manager, Taylor Woodrow, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Drew stated that the original approval dated back to 2010 and since that time both policies and customer expectations had changed. This revised scheme was designed to address those issues.

He stated that the new scheme provided an increased number of parking spaces compared to the approved scheme. He stated that this had required compromise in the design and layout and whilst he acknowledged that there would be an impact, it would be no greater than that of additional cars parking.

He had worked with Officers to address the distances between properties and he expected highway issues to be addressed through a Section 38 agreement.

He was looking at the possibility of relocating the bus stop and, in conclusion, he stated that any outstanding issues could be addressed by appropriate conditions and the application could be determined at the meeting.

The Vice-Chair considered that the proposals were an improvement on the previous scheme. He understood officers concerns regarding the massing of car parking but he believed that was preferable to additional on-street parking. He suggested that concerns on layout could be addressed by appropriate delegation to Officers and considered the bus stop to be an anomaly in its current position.

Councillor Lugg expressed concern that the three four bedroom affordable housing could potentially have 21 occupants in close proximity and asked if they could be split if possible.

Councillor Fearn noted that some parts of the development appeared to be hemmed in but further reduction in density would reduce the profitability of the scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the number of dwellings was the same as the previously approved application. She noted that it was a balance and stated that the variety of garden shapes and sizes reflected the design guide for the locality. She was not convinced that the best balance had yet been achieved and asked the Committee for a steer.

The Chair was satisfied with the recommendation and asked that the application be brought back to Committee if there were any radical changes.

Councillor Dee believed that much could be achieved by judicious planting.

Councillor Brown believed that fewer dwellings would be preferable.

The Chair noted that planning permission had been approved for the same number of dwellings. He suggested that Officers be authorised to determine minor alterations and that radical changes be brought back to Committee and any matters falling between the two be determined by Officers following consultation with himself and the Vice-Chair.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission as detailed in the report with the proviso that minor changes be delegated, radical changes be brought back to Committee and any other matters be determined by the Head of Planning following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.