Agenda item

MP introduced this application for 13 dwellings on a parcel of land at the end of Stone Crescent, to include five affordable units.  The proposal has been amended re. housing size and lay-out, with the latest revised plans submitted after the Agenda was published.  Members will recall the application was deferred from the April agenda, to allow further discussion, but this has not produced a revised scheme which Officers can support.  The recommendation therefore remains to refuse, for the reasons set out in the report:  20/4 outline; S106 lead agreement not complete; no decisions/ access.  County council application.    The application is at Committee due to a previous commitment to Members to bring future applications to Planning Committee. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Patel, neighbour, in objection

Represents the views of residents who object to this development, and do not feel that the developer has engaged with or provided them with any assurance that their daily lives will not be negatively impacted, despite claims to have done so.  Main objections centre on:  significant increases in traffic; negative impact on parking; accessibility issues; health and safety issues increasing the potential for traffic-related incidents to occur; HMOs and the lack of affordable housing; and localised flooding.  The development will only be accessible via a single entry/exit point; the area already suffers high levels of congestion, and this will be heavily impacted by the increase in traffic.  There will be fewer car parking spaces available – at least 39 more vehicles, which will increase exponentially if dwellings are HMOs, causing overspill into the existing estate. 

With narrow roads, no real turning areas, and overgrown hedges in Wharfdale Square, renowned for blocking drivers’ vision, all manner of vehicles currently have a hard time getting round.  Construction vehicles will experience the same, causing major obstructions, inconvenience and health and safety issues.  Inconsiderable parking by parents on the school run is a daily problem, with residents often forced to drive on the wrong side of the road – another health and safety issue.  With no pavements in Wharfdale Square, pedestrians – including young children – often have to walk in the road.  ‘Near misses’ are already a common occurrence, and with the increase in traffic flow, the safety issues will increase.

There are already significant numbers of HMOs in the are, and the type of dwellings being proposed will increase this number; only a token gesture of them could be considered as affordable housing. 

The area already suffers from localise flooding, and the development will increase the area covered by impermeable materials, causing an increase in the quantity and rate of surface water and flooding.

To close, the future of the area and its community is very important to residents, and this development will be a massive change, impacting on daily lives.  Residents have not been consulted, or given an opportunity to have a meaningful conversation with the developers to discuss these concerns.  Would request that developers initiate a public consultation if the planning application is given the go-ahead. 

Mr McCreadie, of New Dawn Homes, in support

His company specialises in residential development; this a scheme for 13 houses, including five social houses, on the redundant Rowanfield School playing field.  The report is out of date and relates to drawings previously submitted in March.  In response to officer concerns, prepared revised lay-out and house types - worked hard and quickly to achieve this, and the urban design officer and planning officer said it would be taken to the July meeting.    The new contemporary house type is similar to the award-finalist houses at Village Road, adjacent to New Dawn Homes offices,  and additional information on flood risk has concluded that there are  no flooding issues that cannot be resolved – to prevent new homes in this sustainable location.   Is surprised and astounded that officers decided without notice to bring the superceded application to the July meeting, allowing no time for further consultation on the amendments.  The drawings are out of date, and no consultations on the revised plans are included.  There is a shortage of new homes, and these  comply with planning standards, distances to neighbouring properties are OK, and no HMOs are included.  GCC has no specified maximum or minimum parking standards; this scheme provides an average of two spaces and garage per property – feels this is good practice, but can agree to reduce if Members are minded.  Willing to accept planning conditions and enter into usual S106 for education and libraries; also committed to five affordable units, plus any other conditions or agreements required. Requests that members permit these much-needed new homes on a sustainable site, close to current schools and amenities.  

Councillor Holliday, in objection:  speech circulated at meeting and read by Members

Member debate:

KS:  the applicant has said that the plans are out of date, so can officers confirm which application Members are deciding tonight?  And was it made clear to the applicant why the application is at June committee rather than July?

SW:  is very much on the officers’ side on this one.  To make sure of one issue, which is a big bugbear and mentioned in Councillor Holliday’s comments – it appears that there are no footpaths.  We have previously been told that people like shared space, but the fact is more that they don’t  - they just have to put up with it.  There are estates with shared space in his ward where cars are parked right on the kerb line, forcing people to walk across ‘front lawns’ or in the middle of the road.  Asks that we get away from this type of design, and provide actual footpaths.  Is happy to support the officer recommendation.

PM:  is concerned that if there was a previous commitment to bring to application to the July meeting, bringing it to June is not fair on the applicant; suggests a decision should be deferred until July.  Is intrigued by the green palisade fence  at the end of Stone Crescent; understands that residents paid for the fence and had to install it on their land; is curious about its history, and how this was done.  Empathises with the residents concerned about the possibility of sewage reflux – experienced this on a trip to Venezuela.  This is a modern development and we cannot be sure how much contingency has been built in or assume that the local network can deal with these extra dwellings.  Is minded to take on board the comments of the flood officer. 

JP:  was quite taken with the lay-out on first viewing – a good location, a wide range of amenities nearby, close to secondary and primary schools etc – but on looking at it in more detail, feels that the developer hadn’t taken advantage of the site.  Agrees with PM, and would like to know why this application has been brought forward to June with numerous questions unanswered.  Have the foul sewer, no-build zones, and flooding issues been resolved yet?  Until these are resolved, agrees with the officer recommendation, unless the application is deferred to allow the developer to address those issues. 

MP, in response:

-       To KS, the plans on the wall and the screen are the latest revision submitted, and these are the plans which will be decided on tonight;

-       To explain the decision to bring the application to June committee rather than July:  officers originally intended to bring the application to Committee in April, with a recommendation to refuse; the applicant requested a deferral until May, but officers didn’t feel this would be long enough to deal with all the issues, therefore requested a three-month extension of time, setting the date by which a decision must be made.  A meeting was held with the applicant soon after the deferral in April, but it was five or six weeks before a revised lay-out was submitted.  The Urban Design officer and case officer did not feel that this had addressed the concerns.  The issues were discussed in the round, and officers considered there was insufficient time to bring the new scheme to the July meeting – further revised plans would be needed, and further consultation.  The update includes the response of the LLFA to the latest plans and flood risk – it still objects.  If the application was to be deferred again, it would not be ready for the July committee, as there is not enough time for consultation;

-       To SW, agrees with his comments regarding the shared surfaces, but highways officer do not object so we cannot insist on pavements.  The developer is here tonight and will have heard SW’s comments and concerns;

-       Regarding the green palisade fence, this has been raised before.  It is ultimately outside the remit of planning committee.  Doesn’t know its history, but it is on land owned by the applicant, and PM is correct that local residents contributed to its installation;

-       Regarding sewerage, Severn Trent initially sent a standard response, stating that the sewers were situated towards the north of the site; in a subsequent response, Severn Trent said the sewers should be located in public space – this is not a usual request, which is more like to require a 3m no-build zone and access allowed. 

KH:  does PM want to carry on with a move to defer, or are Members satisfied with the response they have received?

(Happy to vote on officer recommendation)

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

10 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE