Agenda item

Officers informed the Committee that the Application was for reserved matters approval (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale), for the construction of 72 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure, pursuant to the hybrid planning permissions 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB (Cross boundary application with Redditch Borough Council 22/00359/REM).

 

Officers presented the report and informed the Committee that the application site formed part of a larger site that was the subject of a cross boundary hybrid planning applications for the following proposal.

 

Hybrid applications 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB for up to 960 dwellings consisting of a full application for 128 dwellings accessed off Weights Lane, new public open space, drainage system, engineering operations associated works and an outline application (with all matters reserved with the exception of access) for the construction of the remaining dwellings with access points off Cookridge Close, Hawling Street and Weights Lane and including a new District Centre, new play facilities, new highway network, public open space, new drainage system and surface water attenuation, engineering operations and all associated works including landscaping.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to the following officer’s presentation slides: -

 

·         District Plan Map

·         Approved Framework Plan

·         Site Location Plan

·         Satellite View

·         Enlarged Proposed Site Layout

·         Tenure Plan

·         Dwellings Heights

·         Examples of Proposed Dwellings

·         Proposed Streetscene

 

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the ‘Other Planning History’ Phase 1 and Phase 2, as detailed on page 10 of the main agenda report.

 

The application site formed part of the Brockhill allocation, which was a greenfield site which extending to circa 56 hectares, phases 1, 2 and 3 as detailed on page 10m of the main agenda report.

 

Phase 4 covered 9.2 hectares and would be sited within the context of the above. Within Phase 4, the most relevant features were the existing woodland, trees and hedgerow cover, which were mainly set over a steep topography (1:3) and contained numerous trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

 

The principle of the proposed development (for up to 960 units) had been established through the granting of Hybrid permission 19/00976/HYB.

 

Therefore, the issues for consideration by Members were limited to matters of layout (including internal vehicle access), scale, appearance and landscaping.

 

Page 11 of the main agenda report detailed a table which sets out the house types, tenures, bedroom numbers and totals of each.

 

Officers highlighted that a total of 42 market homes were proposed to be provided across the site to provide 9%, two-bedroom dwellings: 41%, 3-bedroom dwellings, 37% 4 bed dwellings and 13% 5 bed dwellings. There was a focus on the provision of 2- and 3-bedroom properties (which would make up over 50% of the overall phase). The proposals included the provision of 30 affordable housing units, which equated to 42% of the total dwellings proposed.

 

As part of the proposal, mostly 2 storey dwellings were proposed. However, there were also some 2.5 dwellings incorporating dormers.

 

The layout responded directly to the challenging topography across the site and related to earlier development phases and was a direct continuation of Phase 3. 72 units would outlook onto the area of public open space, which would create natural surveillance and a focal point for way-finding whilst being respectful to existing residents and creating adequate separation from the nearby industrial estate. Residents living on plots 129-141 and 177-189 (numbered continuously from Phase 3) would also benefit from views out to the surrounding countryside

 

The route of the main road offered a direct, logical route for all users and would connect Phases 1, 2 and 3 through to 5, 6 and 7 in a sinuous form. This would provide in-built traffic calming whilst maintaining a legible movement structure.

 

The distribution of affordable rent and shared ownership properties was proposed to be in a diverse and reasonable manner. Housing Officers had been consulted with and had agreed that the affordable housing provision, mix and cluster arrangements within the layout were acceptable.

 

The proposed layout was faithful to the masterplan from the outline approval, in its site planning strategy, in its density, and in its detailed layout. The proposal was in accordance with policy RCBD1. Overall, the proposed layout was considered to accord with policies BDP19, Bromsgrove High Quality Design SPD and the NPPF.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to the ‘Scale including Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Provision’ information, as detailed on pages 14 of the main agenda report.

 

All the houses were of an attractive, functional modern design. A materials palette was proposed featuring two-tone brickwork, consisting of Rannoch Red contrast brick and Yorkshire Red Blend or Lindum Reserve contrast brick and Yorkshire Red Blend, Cream render tiled roofs in either Seawave Grey or Duo Anthracite and black coloured garage doors in steel timber effect panel or similar material; and RWPs and gutters to be black.

 

All of the houses would face onto the street, as detailed on the ‘Proposed Streetscene’ presentation slide.

 

The Highway Authority was consulted with, and several changes were made to the plans to ensure the development was acceptable. As a result of these changes (including, forward visibility, road alignment, design of the internal roadways to a maximum of 20mph, confirmation on the number of parking spaces which now met the required adopted standards) WCC as Highway Authority had advised that it had no objection.

 

Overall, it was considered that, given the degree of separation, position, and orientation between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties, the proposal would not result in harm to the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties or future occupants of the proposed dwellings.

 

In relation to the construction phase of this phase, under condition 39 of the hybrid permission, a Construction Environment Management would be required prior to the commencement of the 4th Phase

 

Officers commented that overall, it was considered that this proposal satisfactorily achieved the aims of the Design & Access Statement and development plan policy.

 

Officers concluded that this was an allocated development site. The four reserved matters under consideration were found to comply with the relevant conditions imposed as part of the hybrid permission and to adhere to the masterplan, the principles of the Design and Access Statement and the NPPF.

 

In the planning balance and taking account of material planning considerations, the development was acceptable.

 

It was noted that there were no registered public speakers.

 

Members then considered the reserved matters application, which officers had recommended be approved.

 

Members questioned if a Condition could be included so that the Council’s Community Safety Project Team and the police Crime Risk Manager to be consulted with, with regard to designing a secure, well planned development.

 

Officers stated that a Condition could not be included. However, officers would reassure Members that the police Crime Risk Manager would be consulted with throughout the development; and could comment on the application as it stood. Officers could include an ‘Informative,’ but it was an unusual request requiring the applicant to consult with the police Crime Risk Manager or the Council’s Community Safety Project Team.

 

It was agreed that an ‘Informative’ be included tasking the applicant to seek ‘Secure by Design’ advice.

 

In response to questions from the Committee with regard to the location of the affordable housing and in Members opinion, the affordable housing being clustered; Officers referred to the comments received from Housing Strategy, that the location of units throughout the site was acceptable, as detailed on page 8 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers responded to further questions with regard to the potential impact on the existing highways and there being no transport plan. Officers drew Members’ attention to the comments received with regard to Highways and Parking from the Highway Authority, as detailed on page 15 of the main agenda report. Officers further highlighted that a travel / transport plan Condition had been included as part of the Full planning application and was therefore not included the Reserved Matters application presented to Members. As part of the hybrid application, section 106 monies had been identified for improvements to bus services in and around the area, which had been identified and agreed.

 

Some Members raised questions with regard to the location of the affordable housing and the distance from those dwellings to the nearby industrial estate and commercial buildings. Officers commented that Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) had raised no concerns and that the ‘Layout,’ as detailed on page 12 of the main agenda report; stated that the ‘layout would be respectful to existing residents and creating adequate separation from the nearby industrial estate’. Private ownership dwellings would have a similar separation distance to the industrial estate and commercial buildings.

 

RESOLVED that the Reserved Matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping be approved subject to;

 

a)    the Conditions as detailed on pages 15 to 17 of the main agenda report; and

 

b)    the following Informative, that the applicant be tasked to seek ‘Secure by Design’ advice.