ERECTION OF 42 NO. HOUSING UNITS (OUTLINE) AT Reserve Sites A And D, Hindhead Knoll, Walnut Tree FOR English Partnerships

Transcription

1 05/01386/OUT ERECTION OF 42 NO. HOUSING UNITS (OUTLINE) AT Reserve Sites A And D, Hindhead Knoll, Walnut Tree FOR English Partnerships INTRODUCTION The 13 Week Date for the determination of this major application is 12 December This application relates to two parcels of land to the north and south of Hindhead Knoll (the northern site being referred to as site A and Southern site as Site D). The sites are currently undeveloped with the northern site being laid to grass but containing a mature hedge and a number of individual trees. The southern side is also undeveloped. A hedge line extends in to the southern part of the site. An existing landscaped park/public open space lies between the two sites and is encircled by the carriageway of Hindhead Knoll. There is a large mature oak tree within the highway to the front of site A. Existing residential development in the form of two storey houses lies to the north and west of the northern site (site A), although Highgate Over lies between the site and existing western side development. To the east of site A lies Blackberry Court which contains extensive on site parking associated with the Health Centre and associated facilities. Residential development lies to the south of site D with further dwellings on the opposite side of Lichfield Down to the west. To the east of this southern site is a large on-street parking area with a reserve site and Walton High School beyond. Hindhead Knoll incorporates extensive car parking spaces which are clear of the carriageway but within the highway boundary. PLANNING HISTORY Planning permission was refused in October 2004 (reference 03/02050/FUL) for the erection of 75 apartments and a single mothers unit facility. The reasons for refusal related to: the development being out of keeping with the area, particularly in respect of the density of the development and the three storey nature of much of the development; inadequate on site car parking leading to additional on street parking in the surrounding area; and lack of a section 106 Agreement to secure necessary infrastructure/off site works to support the development. Planning permission was refused in March 2005 (reference 04/02277/FUL) for erection of 59 affordable apartments and accommodation for 8 no. single parents, together with 8 additional community car parking spaces in

2 Blackberry Court. The reasons for refusal, were very similar to the previous application related to: the development being out of keeping with the area, particularly in respect of the density of the development and the three storey nature of much of the development; inadequate on site car parking leading to additional on street parking in the surrounding area; and lack of a section 106 Agreement to secure necessary infrastructure/off site works to support the development. CURRENT APPLICATION The current application is submitted in outline form with all matters except means of access reserved for subsequent approval. A drawing detailing access and parking arrangements along with a planning and design statement supports the application. The supporting documents indicate that the dwellings would be no more than two-storey but it is indicated that in some locations the two-storey dwellings may incorporate rooms in the roofspace, but with a maximum height of 9 metres. It is indicated that the development would comprise a total of 42 dwellings split equally between the two sites. It is proposed that 30 percent of the dwellings would be affordable in accordance with current policy. The documents also state that on site car parking, in courtyards, would be provided on the site in accordance with current Council Parking Standards. Access to the sites would be taken from the turning heads located at the closed end of the access roads that run from Hindhead Knoll to the east of both sites. The plans also indicate additional public parking provision adjacent to the turning heads. MAIN ISSUES Does the development proposal accord with current policy? Is the density of development acceptable? Is the design and layout satisfactory? Would adequate car parking be available? Have the issues raised by Members when the previous applications were considered been addressed? PLANNING POLICIES Adopted Local Plan 1995 PH5 Priority Housing Needs PH10 Density of New Housing Development PH11 Design and Layout of New Housing Areas AM9 Design Standards for New Roads/Accesses

3 AM12 Parking Provision AM21 Cycling AM23 Access for the Disabled DC1 Impact of Development on Locality DC2 Impact of Development Proposal on Site DC3 Scale and Character of development DC5 Landscaping PG1 Main Areas for Planning Gain PG4 New Housing Development Second Deposit Version Local Plan October 2002 D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of Buildings D4 Sustainable Construction T1 The Transport User Hierarchy T2 Access for those with Impaired Mobility T3 Pedestrians and Cyclists T5 Public Transport T9 The Road Hierarchy T10 Traffic Impact T11 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans T15 Parking Provision H2 Priority Housing Requirements H3 Affordable Housing H4 Affordable Housing H5 Affordable Housing H7 Housing Areas H8 Housing Density H9 Housing Mix L3 Leisure and Recreation - Standards of Provision PO1 Planning Obligations - General Policies PO5 New Housing Development Government Policy Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking Standards (December 2004) Affordable Housing (July 2004) Education Facilities CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS The Chief Environmental Health Officer has recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the evaluation of the extent and nature of any ground contamination and approval and implementation of an appropriate mitigation strategy.

4 The School System Review Officer has noted that the applicant has proposed to make land available in lieu of the normal section 106 contributions. It is confirmed that the need to provide a sixth form block of the scale now required was not envisaged when the original school site was purchased and the only viable way to provide the facility is to secure additional land. The additional land is additional to the normal land take covered by the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and as such an acceptable exception to the normal practice of the Council. The Housing Development Officer has confirmed that the scheme is fully supported by Housing Strategy & Development in providing affordable housing, particularly much-needed supported housing. The Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board have commented that the applicant has not made provisions for storm water drainage and suggest that this should be resolved before consent is issued. The Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor has confirmed that he has no concerns regarding this outline application but has made a number of recommendations about measures and issues that should be addressed at the detail design stage. Sixteen letters have been received which raise objection to the application on the following grounds: 1. Car parking is a major problem in the area. 2. No additional capacity in local health services. 3. No spare capacity at Walton High School. 4. The green facilities in Walnut Tree will be further eroded. 5. High density development will upset the balance of the area. 6. Creation of highway danger. 7. The area is reserved for community facilities. 8. The land should be used to provide additional parking for the school. 9. Traffic calming is needed in the area. 10. Walton Road was never built to accommodate heavy vehicles. 11. Excessive litter in the area. 12. Demand for use of local shops will be further increased. 13. Increase in highway danger. 14. Erosion of open space. 15. Loss of views to the surrounding area. 16. Noise and Disturbance. CONSIDERATIONS Planning Policy As indicated above both of the sites the subject of this application are allocated for residential development in both the Adopted and Second Deposit Versions of the Local Plan. Land to the east of site D is identified as a pair of

5 reserve sites (reference RS/81 and RS/132), however, neither is specifically highlighted as being suitable for a library and both sites are shown as suitable for a range of uses including residential and community use. It is, therefore, considered that the principle of residential development on these sites has already been established through their allocation in both Adopted and Second Deposit version Local Plan. Development Density The proposed development would be at a higher density than the surrounding area with a density of approximately 49 dwellings to the hectare. This density, is, however, a significant reduction from the 89 dwellings per hectare proposed in the most recently refused application. Both Government Advice and the policies contained in the Second Deposit Version of the Local Plan seek to maximise the density of new development. The proposed density, is within the range of dwellings per hectare recommended in PPG3. The density is partly a function of the rectangular nature of the sites and the surrounding roads which allow all of the indicated dwellings to have a highway frontage without needing to construct an adoptable standard street within the site. It is considered that in the context of this particular pair of sites and the specific nature of the development proposal the proposed density is acceptable. Car Parking and Highways The provision of car parking was a major consideration with the previous application where Members took the view that there was little or no spare capacity in the existing parking facilities around Hindhead Knoll to serve the proposed developments. The current scheme proposes car parking in accordance with current standards and would not rely on existing facilities in the same way as the previous schemes did. It should also be noted that additional public parking would be provided as part of the proposed development. Whilst there would be some increase in the number of vehicles using the local road network it is not considered that this would be beyond the capacity of the existing highway infrastructure. It is further considered that the increase in traffic would not prevent access to the Park and play facilities within Hindhead Knoll. Section 106 package New developments of this scale would normally be expected to make contribution, through a section 106 agreement, towards additional infrastructure.

6 The applicants have suggested that a section 106 agreement should cover matters related to affordable housing and education contributions citing the levels of contribution discussed in respect of the earlier applications. The previous applications were, however, for schemes composed entirely of affordable housing where it was considered appropriate to accept a lower level of contribution than would be required by applying the normal requirements covered in adopted and emerging supplementary planning guidance. The current scheme is a "normal" market development with only 30 per cent affordable housing proposed. It is, therefore, considered that full payment should be made in accordance with the supplementary planning guidance to meet the needs generated by the development and there is no justification for a discount as suggested. There is one element of the normal section 106 package where an exception could be made. The applicants have offered to provide land at no cost for the construction of a sixth form block in association with Walton High School. The applicants have submitted calculations which suggest the value of the site (which forms part of one of the reserve sites) is equivalent to the normal contribution expected from the development. The School System Review Officer has confirmed that this approach is acceptable to him as an exception to normal practice where contributions are normally sought to cover all age groups. It is, therefore, considered that in this particular case there is justification for making an exception to normal practice, but this should be seen as a reflection of special circumstances and not a precedent for other developments. Previous reasons for refusal It is considered that the proposed development has fully addressed the reasons for refusal cited in respect of the earlier application. Given the outline nature of the application it would be appropriate to apply conditions restricting the height of the proposed buildings to no more that two-storey with rooms in the roofspace and requiring the detailed design of the development to be carried out in general accordance with the principles set out in the submitted Planning and Design Statement. CONCLUSIONS The principle of residential development on these sites has been established through their allocation in the Local Plan. A section 106 agreement is required to ensure that suitable contributions are made to enhance local infrastructure to meet the needs generated by the proposed development. The application is considered to have satisfactorily addressed the issues raised in the previous reasons for refusal the officer view is, that the proposed development is acceptable and there are no sustainable grounds to refuse planning permission.

7 RECOMMENDATION Subject to the prior completion of a satisfactory section 106 agreement it is recommended that the application be permitted with conditions in respect of: materials, access, parking, levels, landscaping, boundary treatment, no overhead lines, contamination survey, restriction on building heights and development in accordance with the submitted Planning and Design Statement.