Agenda item

Site Visit List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

 

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

 

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

 

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

 

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

 

Item No. 1

Application No. 18/02898/FUL

Site Location: Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch – Erection of 5 residential units (including affordable housing) together with associated parking, highways and landscaping works

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to delegate to permit.  She explained that the new nursery school that opened in June 2017 could take 30 children on a full-time basis and was currently running at 60% occupancy.  Therefore there was currently room for 12 additional children.  Subject to available funds the nursery could also expand to provide up to 24 additional places, giving a total of 54 places at the nursery.  Work was currently underway to widen the footpath and to provide a zebra crossing on the walking route to the nursery.

 

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Case Officer responded to questions as follows:

 

·  The additional housing would provide two affordable units.

·  Officers were not aware of any agreement that specified that a nursery should be provided “near” to the development. 

·  It was noted that many of the units were now occupied and officers confirmed that the early years’ education facility had been opened prior to occupation as specified in the Section 106 Agreement.

·  The estimated walking time to the existing early years’ facility was a 10 minute walk which was considered to be reasonable.

 

Cllr Matthew Davies queried the acceptability of a 700m walk to the early years’ facility with a young child. 

 

Cllr Appleyard felt that the walk would take longer than 10 minutes with young children.  He noted that the walking route was along a busy main road and also stated that there was no guarantee that the nursery would be in existence for the long term.

 

Cllr Jackson expressed concern about the removal of the requirement to provide an early years’ facility.  She queried whether the current 60% occupancy of the existing facility was viable.  She also queried whether a play area could be provided by the developer in this location if not a nursery.  She was also concerned about pollution levels along the walking route.

 

The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that the legal agreement covered a number of matters including landscaping and highways. He confirmed that due to the existence of an adequate facility in the area the requirement to provide an early years’ facility at this site no longer applied. From a planning perspective the land was no longer reserved for an early years’ facility and was simply a vacant plot of land.

 

Cllr Kew was concerned at the loss of the early years’ facility within the new development area.  He referred to a letter that had been sent to the developer from the Council stating that the requirement to provide such a facility had been discharged.  He noted that even with the new facility there remained a shortfall of 18 nursery places.  Extending the facility could lead to a reduction in parking spaces.  The A37 was a very busy road and was not a safe walking route for young families.

 

Cllr Crossley pointed out that the proposal would provide one property for social rent and one for shared ownership.  He felt that this would be advantageous given the need for housing in this area and felt that this was more important than providing a second early years’ facility.  He moved the officer recommendation to delegate to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Butters.

 

Cllr Organ stated that the walking time from the new development to the nursery school was actually closer to 20 minutes.

 

Cllr Appleyard felt that the provision of the facility should actually be on the development site which would be more beneficial to children and families living in the new properties.  He also highlighted the added benefit of creating a cohesive community and the social advantages of a local facility.

 

The Legal Advisor advised that, if the Council had written to the developer discharging the planning obligation, then the Council would be bound by that decision.

 

The motion was put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour and 7 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

 

Cllr Kew then moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending further legal advice on the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement in order to establish if there were any alternative options.  This was seconded by Cllr Appleyard.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DEFER consideration of the application pending further legal advice on the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement.

Supporting documents: