Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/21/022

Reserved matters application - submission of details under outline planning permission SE/09/1283 - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 127 dwellings, together with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangements together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a phase of residential development known as phase 2b as amended by plans received 14.5.21 increasing number of units to 129 and amendments to access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping as summarised in covering letter dated 14.5.21

(Councillors John Burns and David Smith each declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that they had taken part in Haverhill Town Council’s consideration of the application.  However, they stressed that they would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Reserved matters application - submission of details under outline planning permission SE/09/1283 - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 127 dwellings, together with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangements together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a phase of residential development known as phase 2b as amended by plans received 14.5.21 increasing number of units to 129 and amendments to access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping as summarised in covering letter dated 14.5.21

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following call-in from Ward Member (Haverhill North) Councillor Joe Mason. In addition, the Town Council had voiced objections to the application.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application was part of the wider North West Haverhill site which was one of two strategic growth sites for Haverhill identified in the adopted Core Strategy. The application before the Committee sought approval of the details for part of the second phase of residential development.

Members were advised that the site had previously been the subject of a significant public engagement process through the preparation and adoption of a concept statement and masterplan.

Outline planning permission was granted on 27 March 2015 for residential development, a primary school, local centre including retail and community uses, public open space, landscaping infrastructure, servicing and other associated works alongside full permission for the construction of a relief road.

The Officer clarified that phase 2 of the strategic site fell within two broad character areas defined in the approved Design Code; Wratting Gardens to the North (the character area for phase 1) and Boyton Place to the South which incorporated the local centre and was envisaged as being more contemporary in appearance.

The Southern part of phase 2 (known as phase 2b) was initially submitted with the Northern parcel in Planning Application DC/16/0215/RM. However, it was withdrawn from that application to enable further work to take place to improve its character, layout and appearance.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated after the agenda had been published and which set out the proposed conditions in detail. The Principal Planning Officer made reference to an error within the papers where it inaccurately referenced 127 dwellings, which had been increased to 129 units via amended plans.

Lastly, the Committee was informed that three further late public representations had been received since circulation of the late papers. The Officer read out a summary of the objections contained therein, all of which covered topics which had been previously covered by earlier representations and which were referenced within Report No DEV/WS/21/022.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in the supplementary late papers.

Speakers:    Brad Strachan (neighbouring objector and on behalf of fellow neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

Councillor Elaine McManus (Haverhill Town Council) spoke against the application

Stuart McAdam (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor John Burns opened the debate and spoke at length on the detailed history of the site. He voiced concerns on the lack of infrastructure and questioned the sustainability of the development.

His primary objection related to the 4 storey flat roofed units which he argued were an overdevelopment, out of keeping and would be intrusively visible by the majority of the town due to the elevation of the application site.

Councillor David Smith also addressed the meeting and echoed many of the points made by Councillor Burns. His largest concern was also the 4 storey units and the visual impact they would have.

Councillor Peter Stevens stressed that the site was former rolling countryside and therefore the design of the roof blocks was important to mitigate the visual impact. He also raised concern about wider cumulative traffic impacts of the development.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to these and other questions/comments as follows:

·         The cumulative highways impact was considered at outline stage of the application;

·         The level of parking per unit and for visitors complied with parking standards;

·         The density of the scheme was established at outline stage of the application;

·         Green space was secured as part of the Section 106; and

·         Design Out Crime had been included within the scheme seeking approval.

Councillor John Burns queried the number of electric charging points to be included which he considered to be insufficient. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be deferred in order to allow Officers additional time in which to work with the applicant to address some of the concerns raised by the Committee; principally relating to the 4 storey units, the density and electric charging point provision.

Councillor David Roach sought clarity of the process in respect of outline/reserved matters applications and continued to voice concern at the density of the scheme. He stated that he felt unable to support a deferral motion.

Councillor Mike Chester then duly seconded the motion for deferral.

Councillor Andy Drummond raised a query as to the motion proposed and the Chair clarified that whilst Councillor Roach did not second the motion for deferral he did not propose an alternative motion.

Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with 7 voting for the motion, 6 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow Officers additional time in which to work with the applicant to address some of the concerns raised by the Committee; principally relating to the 4 storey units, the density and electric charging point provision.

(Councillor Roger Dicker joined the meeting at 10.10am during the Case Officer’s presentation of this item, accordingly he was advised by the Chair that he would be unable to take part in the vote on this application.)