Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0031/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head referred to the late representations summary including an update from the applicant and a consultation response from Thames Water.  Members were advised that the principal policy issues had been well rehearsed in respect of application 3/16/0452/FUL.

The Head referred to the prominence of the site and reminded Members that elements of the first application were being implemented.  The design of the scheme was linked to the elevated position of the site above Rye Street and also in relation to the slope of Farnham Road.

Members were advised that negotiations with the applicant had resulted in more landscaping and tree planting to soften the impact of the proposed development.  Certain permitted development (PD) rights would be removed for the properties that would face onto the new roundabout between the site and the Mountbatten Indian Restaurant.

The Head concluded that the application was acceptable with the above constraints and the scheme represented a good standard of design.  Farnham Parish Council had objected on highways grounds regarding the proposed access to the site and the width and alignment of Farnham Road.  The Parish Council was also concerned regarding safety when large vehicles had to pass each other.

Members were advised that the Highways Authority were content with the site access and were happy with the visibility.  The Highways Authority also welcomed the proposed cycle path and the pedestrian crossing on Rye Street.

The Head commented on the linkages to the Town Centre via Grange Paddocks and advised Members that discussions were underway to deliver the proposed cycle route.  Officers felt that the housing mix was satisfactory and the housing units were better aligned with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment than in the original application for 30 dwellings.

Members were advised of a strategy for surface water drainage in respect of drainage flows.  The Head referred to details of foul water drainage disposal and the position of the Environment Agency and Thames Water.

The Head referred to the provisions of the Section 106 agreement which closely met the toolkit requirements of the District and County Councils.  He stated that the reduced affordable housing provision (34% as opposed to 40% in the existing permission for 30 dwellings) had been predicated upon a viability assessment.  The main points at issue were the threshold land value and construction costs.  The Head also referred to the public benefit of the proposed cycle path and Rye Street crossing.

Members were advised that the 12 affordable homes were of good quality and a reasonable compromise had been achieved.  The Head referred to other positive aspects of the Section 106 agreement and the design and landscaping of the scheme.  Officers felt that on balance, the application was acceptable and could be supported by the Committee.

Councillor D Andrews referred to paragraph 8.18 on page 34 of the report submitted and expressed concerns regarding the proposed foul water pumped solution currently being finalised with Thames Water.  He was concerned regarding the strength of condition 7b in securing a satisfactory and reliable pumped foul drainage system connecting into an adopted gravity system.

Councillor P Ruffles commented that the affordable housing was clustered in a separate cul-de-sac and he emphasised that this might be unchallengeable due to the approval of the previous planning application.  He referred to the treatment of back gardens facing the roundabout and the augmentation of conditions 8 and 18 to future proof the boundaries so that they remained green boundaries as opposed to fencing.

The Head stated that he could give no advice in respect of sewage and water treatment works other than an assurance that a management arrangement would be in place to ensure that the pumping system was maintained.

He emphasised that the further pepper potting of affordable housing was not now possible as the original application had stipulated the location for the affordable housing.  The Head referred to guidance that stated that there should be no more than 15 affordable housing units in one cluster.  Housing associations preferred to keep affordable housing units together for management purposes.  Members were advised that Officers could look at suggestions regarding the control of rear boundaries with trees and hedging.  It might be possible to impose Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) in future.

Councillor D Andrews expressed concerns that if a management company failed, then the proposed non-standard sewage system would have to be funded by the Environment Agency or East Herts Council.  He commented on whether condition 17 should be drilled down to cover this issue.

The Head referred to the wording of condition 17 in respect of detailed drawings in consultation with Thames Water and/or the Environment Agency.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor P Ruffles seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/0031/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, the Committee support the recommendation for approval subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted. 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/0031/FUL, subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.