This Application Is Before Planning Committee Due to Recommendation Being Contrary To

F/YR09/0648/F
16 October 2009
Applicant : Cannon Kirk UK Ltd / Agent : Mr A Collins
Metz Architects Ltd
Land West Of Old Council Depot,Gaul Road, March, Cambridgeshire
Erection of 135 houses comprising of 34 x 2-bed, 48 x 3-bed and 53 x 4-bed with associated garages and parking

This application is before Planning Committee due to recommendation being contrary to consultation response of the Environment Agency

1. /

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located to the north of Gaul Road, to the west of No 119 and the development known as Riverbank Close. It covers an area of approximately 4 ha and is currently in use as agricultural land.
2. /

HISTORY

F/YR05/0944/F

/ - / Erection of 135 dwellings comprising: 6 x 6 bed houses, 29 x 5-bed houses, 50 x 4 bed houses, 37 x 3 bed houses, 6 x 2 bed houses, 3 x 2 bed flats, 4 x 1 bed flats and associated garages and parking Granted 4th April 2008

F/YR04/3814/F

/ - / Change of use of agricultural land to RiversidePark incorporating visitors car park, play area and landscaping Granted 4th April 2008

F/R01/0158/O

/ - / Residential Development of up to 150 units including road improvements to Gaul Road and extension to West End Park as a public facility – refused (lack of information) 22 April 2002
3. /

CONSULTATIONS

Town Council: / Recommends approval
FDC Contaminated Land Officer: / Not yet received
FDC Housing Strategy / Comments awaited
CCC Residential Travel Planning Officer / Requests residential travel plan
CCC Highways: / - Requests that Highway conditions imposed on earlier scheme be brought forward to this submission.
- New roundabout, re-alignment of Gaul Road, new footway and cycleway provision and improved street lighting must be carried out before the occupation of any of the proposed dwelling. Noted request for relaxation of this requirement based on capacity calculations, i.e. applicants indicate that the number of trips generated by the new development means that the present ‘T’ junction is adequate. Local Highways Authority do not share this view as:
i) There have been a number of slight accidents since the original Transport
Assessment was produced in 2004, the majority of which involve right-hand movements in and out of the junction. A roundabout at this location could possibly have reduced a significant number of these.
ii) The parking provision now shownincreases the number of parking spaces which also increases vehicle movements through this junction and hence potential for an increase in accidents occurring if the roundabout is not constructed prior to occupation.
iii) Construction traffic associated with development will have to access via the A141/Gaul Road junction which if it remains as a ‘T’ junction increases the risk of further accidents.
The LHA note that the highway works previously conditioned are to be carried out by the developer prior to commencement of the development under a S106 highway agreement entered into with the highway authority. Full technical details are required to be submitted and approved by the LHA.
In respect of the Site Layout the LHA have requested that drawing no 09713/501 be fully dimensioned showing kerb radii, visibility splays, carriageway and footway widths together with the requirements of the conditions previously imposed. It is noted that the positions of the access to the parking areas served directly off Gaul Road have changed on the new layout to those shown on the previously approved plans. The required 2.4 x 215 m vehicle to vehicle visibility and 2m x 2m pedestrian visibility therefore needs to be shown for these revised access positions.
CCC Archaeology / No objection to and no requirements for this application site. Extensive Archaeological evaluation and localised investigation undertaken in 2008 responding to the archaeological condition of the earlier consent. In view of the localised nature of the evidence in the large application site and its occurrence on diminishing areas of former dry land at the southern edge of the application boundary (geological ‘high’
ground mass is likely to be similar in 09/0648) it is not considered appropriate to
Recommend any further archaeological conditions for applications in this specific area.
Wildlife Trust / Not yet received, however earlier approval identified water voles on site and an appropriate mitigation strategy
Natural England / Not yet received, however earlier approval identified water voles on site and an appropriate mitigation strategy
Anglian Water / Makes a number of informative statements regarding foul sewerage and surface water disposal.
Environment Agency / Initially object on the grounds of unacceptable Flood Risk Assessment and given that no evidence of the sequential test has been applied. Following receipt of this objection Officers have provided the Agency with full details of the earlier consent as this is material to the current submission, the Agency have now given due consideration to the earlier consent and have withdrawn their objection in respect of the sequential test, they are maintaining their objection with regard the surface water disposal and flood risk.
Middle Level Commissioners / Many of the outstanding issues remain unresolved. As a result it is considered that the applicant has not provided adequate evidence to prove that a viable scheme for appropriate water level/flood management exists and that it could be constructed and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Further information is required before further consideration can be given to this proposal. FRA does not meet the requirements of PPS25 and given the above MLC oppose the application of the Board’s behalf. It is noted following further discussions with a representative of Middle Level Commissioners that a number of the issues raised in their consultation response are covered by their own byelaws.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer / Without resolution of following points would object to the granting of planning permission.
-Concerned re permeability through rear parking courts which should be considered a default setting of housing layout practice and result in the loss of security and privacy to the rear of houses.
-No indication as to how individual plots are to be secured affecting both visual amenity and crime risk.
-Bin collection areas are not shown
Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue / Adequate provision should be made for fire hydrants
Local residents/interested parties: / One letter of objection has been received which whilst recognising the need for further housing considers that the town infrastructure cannot support the development in terms of traffic. Concerned regarding loss of light, overlooking and loss of value. Also considered that family homes and older person’s bungalows do not mix.
In addition communication has been received identifying that there should be sufficient lighting for pathways to ensure appropriate linkages to the town centre and West End park.
4. /

POLICY FRAMEWORK

FDWLP Policy
MAR/R1 / - / It is proposed to allocate 8.8ha (21.7
acres) of land for public open space
along the southern edge of the River
Nine from the TownPark to the Bypass
Para 9.14 – To achieve this proposal an
area of land to the south may have to be
released for housing, as an exception, to
facilitate the development of this
Important recreation area.
H3 / - / To resist housing development outside DABs. To permit housing development inside DABs provided it does not conflict with other policies of the Plan.
E8 / - / Proposals for new development should:
- allow for protection of site features;
- be of a design compatible with their surroundings;
- have regard to amenities of adjoining properties;
- provide adequate access.
E1 / - / To resist development likely to detract
From the Fenland landscape. New
development should meet certain criteria
E4 / - / To resist development which would
adversely affect Sissies or other areas of
nature conservation interest
E7 / - / To allow the CountyArchaeologists the
opportunity to investigate a site of
interest prior to its development, where
there is no over-riding case for
preservation
TR3 / - / To ensure that all proposed
developments provide adequate car
parking in accordance with the
approved parking standards
TR6 / - / To ensure suitable facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists are provided
with new development and new
highway construction and also to
improve facilities in existing
developments
PU1 / - / To require new developments to make satisfactory arrangements for water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, land drainage and flood protection matters.
East of England Plan
ENV7 / - / Quality in the Built Environment
Planning Policy Statements (PPSs)
PPS1 / - / Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS3 / - / Housing
PPS13 / - / Transport
PPS25 / - / Development and Flood Risk
5. /

ASSESSMENT

Nature of Application

This application follows the earlier grant of consent for 135 dwellings and associated works, as detailed in the history section above. The current proposal seeks to amend the house types to reflect current market conditions.
It should be noted that as part of this application the developer also sought to amend the condition imposed on the original consent which required that a new roundabout be provided at the A141/Gaul Road junction prior to the occupation of any dwellings on the site feedback from the Local Highways Authority has resulted in the withdrawal of this request.
As such the application under consideration relates solely to the change in house types and minor highway revisions relating to the site itself.

Principle

The principle of development has been established under F/YR05/0944/F which was granted on 4th April 2008. It should be noted that this consent allowed 5-years for commencement and as such the developer has until 3rd April 2013 to implement this earlier consent.
As part of the earlier consideration of the application the Officer report highlighted that:
“The site is outside the Development Area Boundary (DAB) for March where the
Presumption is against new housing development. However, in this case, Local
Plan Policy MAR/R1 states that ‘It is proposed to allocate 8.8 ha (21.7 acres) of
land for public open space along the southern edge of the River Nine from the
TownPark to the bypass’. The explanatory text which accompanies this policy (Para
9.14) states (in part) that in order to achieve this proposal an area of land lying to
The south may have to be released for housing. This would be in addition to other
allocations and would only be considered in exceptional circumstances to facilitate
The development of this important recreation area.’
In addition the report noted the comments of the planning policy manager, i.e.
‘Our corporate approach has been to look at 3 proposals as a whole, namely:-
- Nine Housing development on the former Gaul Road depot site (allocated
for housing in the Interim Statement of Proposed Changes SPG – Proposed
Change No. 15ii).
- West End park extension (allocated for public open space – Local Plan
Policy MAR/R1)
- Phase 1 Housing development (in context of Local Plan Policy MAR/R1
written explanation para 9.14)
Justification being to deliver affordable housing early by taking up Housing
Corporation funding which otherwise would have been lost and to deliver a major
community benefit in the form of West EndPark extension. To facilitate this FDC
are prepared to support a Phase 1 Housing Development as a departure in
accordance with para 9.14 referred to above.
We have indicated that any proposals for a Phase 2 Housing development on the
balance of the land will have to await the preparation of the new LDF and be
considered as part of that process’.
In light of the above, officer’s consider the principle of the development acceptable.
Access
The internal estate roads and layout are considered acceptable and the Local Highway Authority whilst identifying that dimensioned plans will need to be submitted showing kerb radii, visibility splays, carriageway and footway widths support the layout shown. However they also note that visibility splays will need to be shown for the revised access positions of the parking areas accessed directly off Gaul Road, this element can be dealt with via condition.
During the consideration of the application the provision of the roundabout and the phasing of the same have been revisited. As part of the submission an addendum to the previously submitted Transport Assessment was tabled, this addendum sought to demonstrate sufficient capacity at the existing junction to accommodate the entire Phase 1 development without such provision.
Whilst the Local Highway Authority has concurred with the findings of the TA in respect of capacity they did raise issues with regard to highway safety noting that there have been 10 slight injury accidents at the A141 junction since the preparation of the initial TA (i.e. in the past 5 years); of these accidents 1 was a right hand turn into Gaul Road and 6 related to right hand turns out of Gaul Road onto the A141. In addition the LHA have identified that the scheme whilst maintaining the number of dwellings has a greater level of parking provision, e.g. 2005 scheme proposed 302 parking spaces and 403 bed spaces, whereas the 2009 scheme now proposed 310 parking spaces and 424 bed spaces – this represents a 2.6% increase in parking spaces and a 5.2% increase in bed spaces overall.
The LHA also raised the issue of construction traffic servicing the site, however given that the original condition imposed related to occupation of dwellings as a trigger rather than commencement on site this element of the objection cannot be taken forward. Nevertheless it should be noted that the entire site could be constructed without the provision of the roundabout subject to none of the dwellings being occupied.
A meeting with representatives of the Local Highway Authority and the Developer has been held to further explore the highway considerations of the proposal and the LHA have maintained their position reiterating that they remain of the opinion that any phasing proposals will have safety implications for the junction. In light of this advice the Developer has indicated that they would reluctantly accept the imposition of the roundabout condition, albeit they would continue to explore alternative scenarios in respect of phasing arrangements. This would primarily concentrate on traffic flows and types of traffic and would seek to demonstrate that a latter delivery of the roundabout would not compromise highway safety to such an extent that a reason for refusal on this basis could be sustained.
Further updates will be provided to the Committee in this respect however the current application evaluation is on the basis of a roundabout being provided as per the earlier approval.

Design, Density and layout

The overall development layout remains largely unchanged from the earlier approval, i.e. the main access road runs from Gaul Road around to the western boundary of the site with three cul-de-sacs running from it. Dwellings are arranged within the five sections created by the road layout with the majority either fronting the roads or overlooking the proposed park extension to the north of the site. Some dwellings are located in small courtyards in the middle of each of these areas where parking courts are also located. Two additional courtyard roads leading directly off Gaul Road have been repositioned with a further 4 dwellings now deriving direct access from Gaul Road.
An acceptable mix of house types, sizes, and designs are incorporated within the development ranging from 2-bed to 4 bed houses. The present scheme omits the 1-bed & 2-bed flats – supplementing additional 2-bed houses; and deletes the 5-bed and 6-bed dwellings previously incorporated into the scheme which the developer indicates is reflective of current market demand. In order to illustrate the mix of dwellings proposed, plans showing a number of ‘street scenes’ from different parts of the site have been submitted.
The density of the scheme is approximately 34 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is
at the lower end of the guidance relating to density contained within PPG 3 –
Housing, of 30 – 50 per hectare, in view of the location of the site and the form and
character of the surrounding area this is considered acceptable.
In terms of crime prevention it should be noted that the design principles of the scheme remain largely unchanged and as such it is not considered appropriate to revisit these considerations. Comments made regarding security in respect of individual plots have been noted and can be dealt with via condition. Concerns raised with regard to bin collection may also be addressed through the submission of a refuse collection strategy for the site, whilst the majority of dwellings are afforded sufficient kerb-side frontage to accommodate refuse arrangements it is clear that further consideration of this servicing arrangement will be required in respect of certain plots.
Earlier requirements in respect of Archaeology have been satisfied and no further investigations on site are required/ recommended.
Protected species

The presence of Water Voles, a protected species, has previously been evidenced on the site. In this regard, a programme of mitigation work has been included in the form of a method statement. This statement has previously proved acceptable to the Wildlife Trusts albeit with a caveat requiring the resurveying of the site at an appropriate time. Further clarification has been sought from the relevant organisations to ascertain their current position in this regard and a further update will be provided to committee. Given the earlier evaluations of the scheme it is considered likely that the scheme could receive favourable consideration in this respect.

Flood risk and surface water drainage

The consultation response of the Environment Agency is noted. However Officers, mindful of the extant permission which relates to the site, have entered into discussions with the Agency with regard to the ‘sequential’ objection that they have raised and this has subsequently been removed.

The first part of the Agencies objection relates to additional information being required in respect of the Flood Risk Assessment and raises specific surface water and site considerations. This objection remains and the EA have indicated that this matter should be resolved in consultation with the Middle Level Commissioners. To this end Officers are in discussions with both the Developers agent and representatives of Middle Level Commissioners to resolve the outstanding drainage issues. However the earlier consent is a material consideration and as such it is considered these issues can be resolved through discussion/submission of further details and appropriate conditions.

Other Material Considerations

Some general feedback has been received with regard to linkages to West EndPark and the intended lighting schedule. Whilst the current submission does not include a lighting plan, work on the earlier scheme did propose appropriate lighting and this element could be conditioned on any subsequent approval.

Section 106 Legal Obligations

A Section 106 Legal agreement is required in order to secure education contribution as required by policy. In addition, the provision of the proposed extension to the West EndPark must be secured via a S106 Agreement as it is the policy relating to the provision of the park extension which officers have previously considered renders this proposal acceptable. In terms of affordable housing, this has already been provided on the former Gaul Road depot site by Nene Housing as part of the corporate approach referred to above.

Conclusion

The principle of development and the policy context have previously been duly considered, and accepted, under Policy MAR/R1 in respect of the earlier scheme approval F/YR05/0944/F. With principle established Officers in considering the house type changes and minor revisions to the road layout in relation to the site itself conclude that the scheme is also acceptable in this regard.
Whilst there was a more fundamental issue tabled in the current submission with regard to the timing and delivery of the roundabout, which was a requirement of the earlier scheme, the Developers have indicated that they would not prejudice the favourable consideration of the current proposal at this stage in this respect.
Notwithstanding this stance they maintain that adequate capacity has been demonstrated at the existing junction and that amended phasing of the roundabout can be accommodated without compromising highway safety. The Officer recommendation outlined below is on the basis of the delivery of the roundabout as previously agreed and subject to the satisfactory resolution of surface water drainage/flood risk considerations.
6. /

RECOMMENDATION