Agenda item
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday, 1st August, 2023 6.00 pm (Item 23.)
- View the background to item 23.
Proposed re-plan of part of site to provide 24 additional smaller units increasing total from 210 approved to 234 (as alternative to part of planning permission 16/00031/OUT and 20/00307/DETAIL).
Minutes:
It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee following a call-in request by the then Ward member, former Councillor Paul Clifton, on the grounds that the proposed development was: (i) contrary to the Development Plan, (ii) would have a negative impact on urban design/street scene and (iii) would represent a poor housing layout.
The Committee heard that the outline planning permission had been granted on 1 March 2017 under reference 16/00031/OUT for the erection of up to 210 dwellings with access from Elm Tree Avenue, including green infrastructure, children’s play area, school drop off point and parking facility and other related infrastructure at Turpins Farm. Reserved Matters for outline approval 16/0031/OUT, including details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, had been subsequently approved on 24 March 2022 under reserved matters application reference 20/00307/FUL. The principle of residential development at Turpins Farm had therefore been established by the grant of the outline permission.
Members were told that the current re-plan scheme application represented a part alternative housing layout to approved reserved matters application 20/00307/FUL for the western part of the site in order to provide 24 additional smaller housing units increasing the dwelling total for the Turpins Farm site as a whole from 210 approved units to 234 units involving various design and layout modifications to existing streets and house types. Construction was currently proceeding on the eastern half of the site under approved application 20/00307/FUL.
Members were informed that the detailed design, layout, landscaping and scale of the re-plan scheme were considered by Officers to be acceptable. The proposal would not result in any material harm being caused to residential amenity or highway safety.
The Committee was also told that the application was recommended by Officers for approval subject to the planning conditions set out in the Officer report and subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the necessary local infrastructure requirements that arose from the scheme.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (CT) in respect of the application.
There were no Officer updates in respect of this application.
Samuel Caslin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.
Town Councillor Nick Turner, speaking on behalf of Frinton and Walton Town Council, spoke against the application.
Councillor Mark Cossens, the Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
Why are the affordable housing reduced from 30% to 20%? Is this across the whole site? |
This is an odd application as it is a redesign of an existing arrangement, but this is a full application so it is set apart legally from the original. So, it will be 30% of the number of properties the subject of this application. Also, it was 30% of the original as well so therefore it will be 30% of the whole site, though there is an outstanding application to vary the original permission. |
|
Will the Electric Vehicle charging discharge apply to this new application? |
This is secured by Condition 14 on this application. |
|
Is there any evidence to back up the applicant’s claim that this application is to reflect the present housing trends? |
Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been used by the applicant. Dates to 2015 to now, it is 8 years old. The trend back then was more towards 4-bed family dwellings, larger houses are no longer selling well so it reflects the housing trend. The Local Plan Policy is to have regard to this document. Accepted by Local Plan Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry. Flexibility in the policy to consider the changing trends hence requirements for a “broad mix” of housing. Changes in that mix reflect developers experience of the housing market demand. |
|
Are we happy with the density of this site? Is there anything we can do for the access of the car park? |
It has increased from 19 to 20 properties per hectare which is low by Government Standards. Highways have stated that additional properties will not have negative impact on traffic capacity and traffic flows given that site was originally designed for 250 properties in engineering times. There are 30 parking spaces at school drop off area. |
|
Has the traffic survey been done at these peak times? |
A transport statement has been provided. |
|
2019 Inspector recognised that Thorpe-le-Soken high sited was near capacity. Many properties have been built since. Those plus new properties will all have to come through Thorpe-le-Soken to reach points east. What is the impact now? |
This application must be judged at its own merits. Highways Authority has not objected to this application. Officers would caution against refusing this application on Highways grounds. |
|
Have Essex Highways considered the implications for Thorpe-le-Soken High Street as part of its consideration of this planning application? |
Junctions are monitored and randomly surveyed. It is not an exact science to work out capacity of junctions. Officers can only rely on the information submitted by the Highways Authority and would need to demonstrate “severe harm” under the NPPF. |
|
Is the previous Planning Inspector’s appeal decision on The Lifehouse Spa planning application a material consideration for this application? |
The Planning Inspector’s decision did not solely rely on that highway matter as it did not meet the “severity” bar under the NPPF (the Lifehouse Spa was right on top of the junction in question in Thorpe-le-Soken). Highways will be aware of current development plus “planned” and “background” growth and take that into account in their modelling and consideration of Transport Statements. |
|
At what point will we reach threshold for “severity” bar? Can we give any reassurance to Thorpe-le-Soken residents? |
The review of the Local Plan will consider transport network and Essex Local Transport plans and housing density and react accordingly. |
|
Could we condition another entrance/exit to the school drop off point? |
No. The carpark is not part of this application. It is not within the “red-line” area. It has also been built and therefore it would be unreasonable to add that as a requirement. |
|
Could we have local nominations under the affordable housing provision? |
TDC policy is to give a high priority for local people after the statutory requirement e.g. homeless. |
During the consideration of this application, the Head of Planning & Building Control (JP-G) advised the Committee that proposed planning conditions 11 & 12 should be deleted as the planning requirements contained in those conditions were in fact to be secured by way of the proposed accompanying Section 106 Legal Agreement to this application.
It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor White, and:-
RESOLVED that the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission for the development subject to:-
(a) Within 6 (six) months of the date of the Committee’s resolution to approve, the completion of a legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the following matters (where relevant):
On-site 30% Affordable Housing Provision
Education Contribution
Health Contribution
Completion and Transfer of Public Open Space and Maintenance Contribution
RAMS Coastal Recreational Disturbance Financial Contribution
£10,000 Financial Contribution towards speed reduction measures
£15,000 Financial Contribution towards additional footpath improvement works
(b) the conditions stated in section 8.2 of the Officer report but subject to the deletion of conditions 11 and 12 as they will be secured by the Section 106 Agreement; and
(c) the Head of Planning & Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission in the event that such legal agreement has not been completed within the period of 6 months, as the requirements necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms would not have been secured through a Section 106 planning obligation.
Supporting documents:
PDF 554 KB