Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Planning & Community) - A.1 - 25-01066-OUT – Land to The South of Weeley Road, Great Bentley

Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) – for up to 80 dwellings, parking, landscaping, drainage and all other associated infrastructure.

Minutes:

Members were told that this outline application proposed up to 80 dwellings with only the site access to be considered at this stage. The site was located outside (but abutted) the Settlement Development Boundary. The Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply had engaged the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development.

 

The Committee heard that the site had been included as a potential housing allocation in the emerging Local Plan. Technical matters which included highways, archaeology, drainage, ecology, landscaping and amenity had been demonstrated as acceptable or could be mitigated through conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement.

 

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 subject to conditions (and a Section 106 agreement).

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (AN) in respect of the application.

 

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

 

“Great Bentley Parish Council further comments:

 

The council wanted it noted that this proposal now includes a draft Section 106 agreement providing financial contributions towards the village hall, and the operation of a new bus service for a period of two years. These measures would offer infrastructure benefits to the village and support sustainable transport options.

 

As per our previous comments this is a site recommended by the Parish Council for inclusion within the local plan, by moving the proposed site access away from the dangerous bend on Weeley Road, the applicant has taken into consideration the comments made previously. 

 

However, the site does remain located beyond the recommended catchment distance to the railway station, this could be improved if a pedestrian access was linked through their phase 1 into the pedestrian access through the Birch Estate to shorten this down which would also support pedestrian access to the school. 

 

Clarification regarding Paragraph 7.52 of the officer report:

 

Conditions 19 and 23 of 22/01818/FUL for Phase 1 and the associated legal agreement secure the footpath connection across the Phase 2 site to join the Public Right of Way. This should have been completed prior to occupation and retained in perpetuity. However, it remains outstanding due to the conflict with the construction compound and no public access to this part of the site.

 

If this Phase 2 application is approved, the footpath route is altered through the approval of reserved matters, and the development commences, the existing Phase 1 permission and legal agreement will need to be varied by a S73 application and deed of variation to secure the altered alignment of the footpath and triggers for its delivery, maintenance and retention in perpetuity. It would also be secured under any future Phase 2 reserved matters for Layout. This would ensure the previous obligations for Phase 1 are retained and the residents of both phases will benefit from a safe and direct connection to join the Public Right of Way. This matter is clarified by an additional informative within the recommendation as detailed below.

 

The surface water attenuation basin and drainage feature for Phase 1 are also secured by legal agreement. These have been completed and are unaffected by the Phase 2 development which has its own drainage basin and features. This will therefore not require alteration if this Phase 2 application is approved.

 

Paragraph 9.3 Alteration to condition wording:

 

6 FURTHER APPROVAL: BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN PLAN MANAGEMENT & MONITORING PLAN

 

CONDITION: Unless all biodiversity net gain for the development is achieved via the purchase of off-site biodiversity units or statutory biodiversity credits, no development shall commence on the site until a 30-year Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan under Condition 5 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the site and shall contain the following unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 

a)    description and evaluation of the planned habitat works for the creation and/or enhancement of the onsite habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;

b)    the management measures to maintain the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works for a period of at least 30 years from the completion (defined for this purpose as first use and/or occupation unless agreed in writing by the LPA) of the development including:

                      i)        ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management;

                     ii)        aims, objectives and targets for management e.g. links with local and national species and habitat action plans;

                   iii)        a description of the management operations necessary to achieving aims and objectives;

                   iv)        prescriptions for management actions;

                    v)        preparation of a works schedule, including annual works schedule;

                   vi)        mechanisms of adaptive management to account for necessary changes in work schedule to achieve the required targets;

c)    details of the monitoring methodology, to measure the effectiveness of the management of the onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement works together with the timetable for each element of the monitoring programme including when scheme shall be first implemented with provision for monitoring reports to be provided to the local planning authority in writing on year 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, with biodiversity reconciliation calculations at each stage; and

d)    details of the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP including implementation and monitoring;

 

Furthermore, there shall be a completion report submitted to the local planning authority in writing for its approval, evidencing the completed habitat enhancements and/or creation works as set out in the HMMP prior to first use and/or occupation of the development unless agreed in writing by the LPA. The approved HMMP shall be strictly adhered to at all times and implemented in full for its duration with the completion of the habitat works for the creation and/or enhancement of the on-site habitat no later than the first use/occupation of the development, and the management and monitoring of those habitat works as required and in accordance with the approved HMMP thereafter for the period of 30 years or more.

 

The approved HMMP shall be strictly adhered to at all times and implemented in full for its duration no later than the first use/occupation of the development.

 

REASON: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and to achieve the Biodiversity Net Gain objectives set out in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

NOTE: If the approved BNG Plan is for off-site units or statutory credits only, this condition does not require discharge.  For all development that include a BNG plan for a combination of on-site and off-site/statutory credit, this condition is imposed and needs to be discharged as set out to secure the on-site element.  Additionally, should the on-site BNG requirement be considered to be “significant” an associated legal agreement will be required to secure monitoring fees.

 

22 FURTHER APPROVAL: RAILWAY FENCING

 

CONDITION: Prior to first occupation of the development, a strategy to ensure that there is a boundary fence between the proposed development and the railway line which conforms to Network Rail design standards, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will include full details of the location, construction and condition of the current boundary fence on the railway boundary and in the event that the part or all the existing fence does not conform to current Network Rail standards, details of how an appropriate boundary fence will be provided. Any works specified in the approved strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be retained and maintained as approved thereafter.

 

REASON: To ensure that the increase in public activity resulting from the development does not result in an increase in trespass or anti-social behaviour on the railway line that would be detrimental to the safety of members of the public and railway users.

 

Paragraph 9.3 – Addition to informatives:

 

Should this proposal subsequently gain reserved matters approval; the connecting footpath as secured for Phase 1 (22/01818/FUL)  is altered through the approval of reserved matters; and the development proceeds to construction, a S73 variation of condition application for 22/01818/FUL and a deed of variation to the associated legal agreement will be required to secure the altered alignment of the permissive footpath across the application site and triggers for its delivery, maintenance and retention in perpetuity.”

 

Stuart Blakley, the applicant's representative, spoke in support of the application.

 

Chris Morris, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Is it correct that the drainage for Stage 1 is actually on Stage 2, but Stage 2 is also going to have its own drainage at the bottom of the scheme?

Yes, that is correct. Stage 1 has two drainage features and is completely separate and all the drainage from the proposed development will go to a completely new basin that has nothing to do with the Stage 1 drainage.

The play area for Stage 2 is actually on Stage 1, is that correct?

When the application was originally submitted, there was a proposed play area in the North, but the Parish Council requested that because there is a play area in Stage 1 that it was not required in Stage 2, so Officers have favoured the village hall contribution instead.

Can the Committee give suggestions on how to improve the Stage 2 play area?

The Phase 1 development is not within the same application site currently so the Committee and Officers cannot impose conditions at this stage for the play area under this application.

For clarity, is the access road only a part of Stage 1 but when Stage 2 came to Planning, the Highway Authority rejected it straight away? 

They are completely separate. The application site before Members has not been considered before, but when it was submitted there was a point of access onto Weeley Road originally which Officers had concerns with and Highways objected to it so Officers asked to move the access road within Stage 1 and that would mean that there would not need a break in the hedgerow along the site and once the construction compound is finished with that will be able to be closed.

Will the bus service come into the development or bypass on the main road?

It will not come into the development. This is a new bus service that they introduced in February that goes from Brightlingsea to Great Bentley by the train station and out to Clacton-on-Sea, so it is additional funding for that, as it is only currently funded for 2 years. It does not directly come to the site, no, but residents can pick it up at the train station.

Are there no future plan for bus stops within the planning?

No, it has not been requested from the Highways Authority for any bus stops within the development.

Is there going to be any provision made to make the road safer to stop kids running across?

The play area is within the fenced area but the open space around it is completely open and that is how Stage 1 has been approved, so there is not any requirement to hedge that off at the moment. It is not within the application site before Members today so the Committee and Officers cannot impose any conditions covering that part of the site.

Can there be extra hedging put there?

It is not part of this application so it cannot be conditioned. The applicant has not said whether they own or control that land. It was possibly indicated on-site that they may potentially be happy to plant a hedge but that would need to be in a formal arrangement that could not be secured under this application.

Can it be made a formal arrangement with the contractors?

Officers have made an approval decision; it is being built. It is past the point that Officers could retrospectively alter that design or any of the arrangements that have been approved by this authority. The road is a 20mph road, but Officers and the Committee cannot formerly require any changes to this open space or impose security of those changes onto this development. This development is nothing, apart from the route of access, to do with the current application before Members and must be treated separately. Members are looking at this application on its merits only in that respect. If it is good or bad in terms of the existing arrangements regarding this open space, then that is a past argument that the Council cannot go back to.

Would Officers agree that there is a parking problem?

Yes, there is an existing problem in the centre of the village, with the railway crossing as well. The development meets its requirements for on-site parking, and it has got the pedestrian link through to the village. The Stage 1 development was allowed on appeal, and the inspector considered those points and in approving the Birch Avenue residential link, the inspector considered that it made the facilities in the village accessible enough on foot or cycle so that it was sustainable and would not be grounds for refusal. The applicant has met their on-site requirements for parking. Officers do have a transport statement that the Highway Authority is satisfied with the capacity that the local road can take the development and that includes the proposal opposite the site which is pending at the moment.

With the money contributions, how will that affect the local people, and will it be used in the village? Such as doctors’ surgery being expanded.

In paragraph 9.2 of the Officer report (A.1), it shows the Heads of Terms for what Officers have secured in the legal agreement which is being finalised at the moment, and it is £46,800 for Great Bentley surgery or other solutions that address the increased capacity. The NHS talk about different investments, but that is what is secured in the legal agreement that relates to Great Bentley.

Can the Council do something to improve the safety of the road by the play area in Stage 2?

In the order of things, the application before Members is not just for access only, it is for the principle of development in this location and it includes one of the reserved matters which is access which means that what is not included is the layout, appearance, landscaping and so on, but just access but the primary issue here being an outline application is to decide the principle of development. The principle, there are certain bits to that principle that Members need to consider which is ‘what are the burdens of the development?’ in the context of highways, and to understand what the highway implications are, and other principal considerations as well. In normal situations, Officers would say a development of this size would generate x amount of children and those children would need to find a place to enjoy as a public open space. As a general public open space, this exceeds the current requirement. The other requirement is ‘do we need play equipment for those children?’, normally Officers do expect something but in this case, the local Parish Council says that there are already local play spaces already available and the burden on those is not seen as needing another play area and their request is to redirect the funding to the village hall instead. If the debate from Members is that the funding should not go towards the village hall and that it should go towards an existing play space instead, legally Officers would have to look at how that would be done, but effectively Members could say to reduce the money to the village hall and redirect it to an existing play area instead. There is no evidence to tell Officers and Members that the area is unsafe.

Can the reserved matters application come back to this Committee?

It would not usually but if Members request it then it can.

 

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Goldman and unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

 

1)    on appropriate terms as set out in the Officer report (A.1) and those as may be deemed necessary to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Control to secure the completion of a legal agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the matters as summarised at paragraph 9.2 of the aforementioned Officer report;

 

2)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant outline planning permission subject to the agreed Section 106 agreement and conditions as stated at paragraph 9.3 of the Officer report (A.1), the Update Sheet, and the reserved matters application(s) coming  to the Committee, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained;

 

3)    the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary; and

 

4)    in the event of the Planning obligations or requirements referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured and/or not secured within 12 months that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse the application on appropriate grounds at their discretion.

Supporting documents: