Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
It was reported that the reference to ‘bungalows’ at paragraph 6.2 in the report was an error and that the scheme proposed a mix of residential houses and apartments comparable with similar developments in earlier Castlefields schemes.
An update had been received with regards to the loss of a number of trees from the site. The application was supported by a detailed tree survey which stated that whilst the trees were considered to have some amenity value, the Council’s Open Spaces Officer had advised that the trees to be removed were not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order. It was noted that whilst the loss of trees was regrettable, it was not possible to retain the trees through the development and it was considered that the wider benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm resulting from the loss of them. It was considered that replacement planting in compliance with the adopted Castlefields Tree Strategy could be adequately secured by condition.
It was also reported that the scheme was considered deficient with regards to open space provision when measured against UDP Policy H3. Accordingly, it was noted that the Council’s adopted ‘Provision of Open Space SPD financial contributions for off-site provision’ had been calculated and could be secured by legal agreement or other agreement. The Committee was advised however, that following consultation with the Council’s regeneration and highway officers, it had been agreed that available financial contributions would be better spent helping to improve pedestrian links to existing bus stops adjoining the site rather than open space. It was requested therefore that part (a) of the recommendation be amended to reflect this.
The Committee was addressed by Angela Muggeridge, a local resident, who objected to the proposed scheme for the following reasons: loss of wildlife; noise disturbance from HGV’s and machinery; parking issues; traffic issues; potential for vandalism and littering; insufficient parking provision and the spoiling of a local beauty spot. She urged the Committee to look at the plans again and consider alternatives.
Following Members queries, it was confirmed by Officers that once a development had started, planning conditions were enforced by a Planning Enforcement Officer and should there be a breach in planning conditions, these would be dealt with by him.
Members agreed that the scheme complied with Planning Policies and voted to approve the scheme.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to:
a) The entering into of a Legal Agreement or other agreement for the provision of a financial contribution towards the improvement of pedestrian links to existing bus stops and to secure a minimum of 25% of total residential units for affordable housing provision.
b) Conditions relating to the following:
1. Standard 3 year permission to commence development (BE1);
2. Condition specifying amended plans (BE1);
3. Requiring submission and agreement of a Construction Management Plan including vehicle access routes and construction car parking (BE1);
4. Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2);
5. Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping to include replacement tree and hedgerow planting (BE2);
6. Boundary treatments including retaining walls to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2);
7. Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing (BE1);
8. Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);
9. Vehicles access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties / commencement of use (BE1);
10. Condition relating to the implementation of bin store provision (BE1);
11. Submission and agreement of finished floor and site levels (BE1);
12. Site investigation, including mitigation to be submitted and approved in writing (PR14);
13. Conditions relating to tree protection during construction (BE1); and
14. Requiring implementation of cycle parking (TP6).
c) That if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Environmental Health and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it failed to comply with Policy S25 (Planning Obligations).