Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0652/OUT, subject to a deed of variation to the existing legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Principle Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, summarised the application and clarified that the school site was not included in this application.  A care home had also been approved separately to this application at the September meeting of the Committee and a condition had been included on this application covering the location of the care home.

Members were advised that the increase in the number of units by 150 was substantial but was from quite a low base.  The density would increase from a low 11 units per hectare to a more usual 35 units per hectare due to more 2 and 3 bedroom housing being proposed.  Members were referred to page 51 onwards in the report submitted regarding the proposed housing mix.

The Principle Planning Officer advised that this revised proposal included affordable housing at 40% in line with planning policy.  The applicant was not prepared however to included 84% rented and 16% shared ownership as the applicant had based the contributions on a pre-District Plan Policy scenario.  The applicant had however put forward significant Section 106 legal obligations for County Council, District Council and Town Council services and projects.

The applicant had also agreed a compromise offer of 70% affordable rented accommodation and 30 % shared ownership to the satisfaction of the Council’s Housing Services Officer.  Members were advised that the Section 106 contributions on the original application would now be varied to only apply to phases A and B for the original 329 dwellings fronting onto Farnham Road and Rye Street.

Members were advised that a further variation to the Section 106 legal agreement regarding the 260 dwellings proposed as part of phase C plus would give rise to a more beneficial financial situation in terms of contributions for affordable housing and wider provision of services, as detailed in Essential Reference Paper A.  This included substantial contributions towards education provision, community buildings and off-site sports provision as well as other kinds of community facilities.  A figure of over £1 million had also been proposed for primary care services.

The Officer concluded that care had been taken to ensure that the Section 106 contributions were specifically targeted in line with Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations to ensure a sound Section 106 legal agreement.  Members were advised that all environmental considerations were addressed in paragraph 8.20 and a number of following paragraphs in the report submitted.

In response to a query from the Chairman regarding the resilience of the District Plan and policies BISH1a and BISH3, Members were advised that this application was submitted after the formulation of the District Plan and it was acceptable to increase density within the boundaries of the site.  Developers were also being advised to make efficient use of space within housing development sites.

Councillor M Casey referred to shortfall in affordable housing being made up in the second phase.  He commented on whether the full 40% could be insisted upon for the entire development.  The Principle Planning Officer advised that the Authority was tied to a policy of 40% and the viability of the development had to be kept in mind.  .

The Principle Planning Officer responded to a number of comments from Councillor J Kaye in respect of care home provision and bus services for new residents.  Members were advised that offering free bus passes for a 3 month trial period was a widely used practice to encourage bus use and to get residents used to the local bus provision.

Members were also advised that the existing 310 bus service would be diverted for a period of time and there would then be a new service launched for the residents of Bishop’s Stortford North.

The Head of Planning and Building Control responded to comments from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman regarding the figure of 329 in the District Plan for this site.  He referred in particular to the requirement for a minimum of 18,458 dwellings across the District.  The Head also referred to the NPPF requirement for sustainable developments and that, whilst the site specific policy referred to the provision of 329 new dwellings, all relevant policies of the Development Plan have to be taken into account when making a determination.

The Interim Legal Services Manager and the Head responded to a number of further points made by the Committee in respect of housing density.  Councillor M Casey proposed and Councillor P Ruffles seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/0652/OUT, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to a deed of variation to the existing legal agreement and 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 3/18/0652/OUT, subject to a deed of variation to the existing legal agreement, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.