Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

None advised.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 July 2022.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee of the 11 July 2022 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Approved subject to conditions.

Reserved matters application – 223 dwellings including details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to outline approval DA/2013/0850 and approval of Condition 14 (finished floor levels), Condition 15 (open space), Condition 26 (internal noise levels), 36 (bus stops), 37 travel plan) and 38 (public rights of way).

The Major Projects Officer outlined the information in the report and advised that the application for the Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) had been approved in 2015. Works had commenced on site for some phases of the development. With regard to zone 4, the original outline for the scheme had included a provision of 15% affordable housing, following a viability assessment, however this had now been amended and there would be a provision of 21% affordable housing. There were 3 main character areas in the zone: A43 frontage, a Primary Street and General Neighbourhood.

In response to concerns from Members that it had been some time since the viability assessment had been undertaken, the Head of Development Management and Enforcement advised that some Section 106 agreements contained viability reappraisal clauses which enabled the affordable housing assessment to be re-assessed. However, there was no such clause in the Section 106 for this development.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the committee updates and the amended recommendation.

In response to Members’ enquiries, the Major Projects Officer advised that there were ten zones in the SUE which varied in density and overall the housing density for the whole SUE would be lower than the policy requirement. Zone 4 was adjacent to the A43 and those zones to the east of the SUE, on the rural edge, would be lower in density.

The street scene complied with the design code and there was a mix of materials in the General Neighbourhood zone. This zone had a number of smaller dwellings but there were other zones with larger dwellings.

Further to a discussion regarding the requirement to build houses to current building regulations, the Planning Solicitor advised that building regulations fell outside of the remit of planning. However, any developer would have to comply with the building regulations that were in force when they submitted their plans for approval at the reserved matters stage. Building regulations did get updated over time, but there had to be a cut-off point so that the developer had a set of plans to build to.

There had been no conditions added to the outline planning permission regarding National Space Standards, as it had been approved before the requirements had come into existence.

Councillor John Shephard, one of the local ward Members, noted the funding for the educational requirement for Overstone Leys and the importance of the delivery and timing mechanism for the provision of a school. There was an option for the developer to build a school or pay a lump sum after 700 houses were built. Councillor Shephard suggested that a consistent Section 106 agreement template be used for developments in the future. The Head of Development Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Approved subject to conditions.

Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of replacement warehouse for B8 Use with ancillary offices

The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the committee updates report, the altered recommendation and proposed additional conditions.

The Committee were informed that the site was 60 metres distance from residential properties which were screened by dense tree planting. The lorry parking was situated to the east of the site. The site was considered to be in a sustainable location as there were bus stops nearby and a Travel Plan had been provided. Employees would be provided with a smart travel pack advising them of the bus routes and encouraged car sharing. Highways had not objected to the application. One resident had raised concerns over noise from the development, but they had been in discussions with the Planning Officer and were happy with the noise conditions suggested. The site was in a mainly in a low risk flood zone and the adjacent building was in the control of the applicant.

In response to Member’s enquiries regarding the access for lorries and cars at the entrance to the site, the Planning Officer advised that the access had been approved by Highways and the cars would access the site from one side and lorries the other side.

With regard to the potential for renewable technologies to be installed on the warehouse, this was not a legal requirement. The building would be built to a BREEAM standard Very Good. A landscape ecology plan had been provided with the application and the Ecology Officer was satisfied that as a result of the scheme there would be a 10.05% increase in biodiversity at the site.

Environmental Health considered the scheme was acceptable with regard to noise levels and the applicant had provided a noise management scheme. Environmental Health had added a condition that prior to occupation full details of all external lighting would need to be approved by the Council. The dense tree planting would assist to mitigate any light pollution for the nearby residential properties.

Clarification was sought as to the details of the amended condition relating to Electric Vehicle charging points and it was highlighted that the figures referred to the fact that

of the overall parking spaces, 10% were being provided with EV points.

Councillor David James proposed the application be approved, as it was an established use of the land in a sustainable location and would assist with economic development, this was seconded by Councillor Ken Pritchard and on being put to the meeting was declared carried with 10 voting in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That approval be provided in principle, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amended conditions below, with delegated authority to the Assistant Director for Planning to approve any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary;

and subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

· Construction Training

· Monitoring Fee

AMENDMENT TO CONDITION

Condition 17 – EV Charging  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Approved subject to conditions.

Erection of 103,607sqm of polytunnels and associated infrastructure to include alterations to farm access road, hardstanding for car park and service yard and attenuation basins

The Principal Planning Officer joined the meeting remotely and advised that planning permission had been granted for a previous application on the site in August 2021. The existing farm track provided access to the site which consisted of 3 relatively flat arable fields. There were woods to the north, east and south of the site. The proposal was an amendment to the extant permission which included a cut and fill scheme (to create flatter plateaus for the polytunnels) and soil would not need to be removed from the site. The northern SUDs basins were to be enlarged and the main area of hardstanding reduced in size. Some of the hardstanding provided would utilise gravel which was more permeable than concrete. The applicants now sought to provide heating for the polytunnels, but this would only be used for frost protection. A new trackway would also be provided across the northern edge of the site.

The Principal Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to an error in the report, in paragraph 8.15 it stated that comments were awaited from Highways, which was not correct as Highways had commented and raised no objections. It was highlighted that the majority of the site was not in Hackleton and Grange Park ward as stated in the report and was in the Bugbrooke ward.

In response to Members’ enquiries, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the heating would be used infrequently and was not connected to the mains.

Further to concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal on the village of Roade, Members were shown the modelled visual representations of the polytunnels on the landscape from a distance. The existing hedgerows would be enhanced and along the southern edge they would be allowed to grow tall. The trees that would be planted would be natives and condition 17 provided details. A note had been added to the application to ensure that the screening would be as effective as possible.

Stacey Rawlings, the Agent, addressed the Committee and advised that the hedgerows would grow up to 5 metres at some points. Tree planting would be taking place across the whole estate in the next 2 to 3 months.

Further to enquiries, the Agent advised that a route management strategy was already in place for the adjacent poultry farm and as it was a controlled system it was known when deliveries or collections were being made. A request was made for a left-hand sign directing drivers to the A508 to be installed. The Agent advised that the proposed polytunnel system had been being tested for 10 years. It was not viable to have a ground source heat pump at the site due to the archaeology.

Councillor Stephen Clarke, the local ward Member, highlighted that Quinton parish Council had raised concerns regarding highway safety issues. Having discussed the matter with Highways it had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.

There were no items of Urgent Business.