Agenda item

Approved subject to conditions in the report and additional requirements set out in the minutes.

63.            WNS/2022/0292/MAR Phase 1 and PART Phase 1B Norwood Farm, Land East of Sandy Lane Harpole

For the Reserved Matters application (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) relating to Phase 1 and PART Phase 1B (as shown on Indicative Phasing Plan 24556 RG-M-80 Rev G dated 20.10.20) for the provision of 349 dwellings, in accordance with planning permission ref S/2016/1324/EIA (The outline application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement). The area was allocated in the Local Plan as policy area N9A. The land was currently predominantly used for arable farming, but also for a plant nursery and scrapyard. Outline planning permission for the site had been approved in June 2020.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the information in the report and updated the committee with regard to the comments received from Highways, as follows:

·         Approved access plans for Sandy Lane relief road and the new access.

·         Proposed layout plan showed 349 dwellings, including access to Berry Wood road Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) included 52 affordable dwellings within the agreed percentage in the Section 106 agreement

·         Another development phase would cover the Sandy Lane relief road.

·         Dwellings were laid out, in 3 main areas, the primary street, Sandy Lane frontage and side streets with an urban core area, with two key gateway buildings to mark the important junction and viewpoints

·         The LEAP would include 9 pieces of play equipment, include bench litter bins and enclosed in metal hooped topped fence

The Principal Planning Officer provided verbal updates in relation to issues that had been outstanding at the time of writing the report:

·         Paragraph 8.6 - referred to brick boundary enclosures. An acceptable alternative had been agreed and dwarf brick wall would be provided with a slatted fence.

·         Paragraph 8.13 - house design - acceptable changes made to the siting of chimneys.

·         Paragraph 8.2.9 – the issue of visitor parking conflicting with the access to businesses had been addressed.

·         Paragraph 8.30 - parking, awaiting Highways comments regarding the separation of the frontage parking bays at 129-131.

·         Paragraph 8.3.5 – additional planting for bins and bike store.

·         Paragraph 8.37 - the number of footpath connections had now been reduced to limit the number of breaks in the existing hedge.

·         Paragraph 8.44 - the residential amenity separation distance had been amended to meet the 18m minimum standard set out in the Design Guide, for plots 137-138.

In response to Members’ enquiries, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the build of the LEAP would be linked to the number of occupations, the S.106 agreement included a timetable for the development. The Planning Solicitor advised Members that the play areas would be provided at 50% of the occupation of the site.

The percentage of affordable homes that would be provided was 15% which had been determined as viable in this phase.  This could increase to 17.5% in later phases, as the Section 106 agreement contained a clause to ensure this was reviewed after 800 units had been delivered.

No provision had been made for a secondary school within the development; should the education authority consider there was a need in the future, provision could be made through the Community Infrastructure Levy.

There were ongoing discussions with a view to the provision of bus routes for the area. Electric Charging Vehicle Points could be expected to be provided in accordance with the outline consent.

Highways had been consulted on the Design Code and had not objected to the width of the primary roads which were stated as being 6.3 metres.

In response to a member’s enquiry, the Senior Manager – Development Management informed the committee that the number of affordable houses had been determined as part of the viability assessment in 2016 however the number of affordable dwellings could be increased, as aforesaid.

Environmental protection had been consulted and made a recommendation to provide noise mitigation within the properties.  A condition had been added to the outline consent to provide an acoustic fence to mitigate noise.

In response to a Member’s concern that maintenance of the open spaces would be carried out by a management company funded via an ongoing service charge for residents, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Harpole Parish Council had expressed an interest in adopting the open spaces and the S.106 Agreement would secure commuted sums for Harpole PC.

The Illustrative Master Plan showed the extent of the SUE. It was anticipated that the community building would be built in the second phase.

In response to a Member’s enquiry with regard to concerns that the road may not be built to adoptable standards, the Planning Solicitor advised that it would be a matter for the Highway Authority to determine if the roads were being built to an acceptable standard and evidence would need to be provided that the roads would be adopted through a S38 agreement.

The gateway buildings were designed to be notable to act as a reference point and landmark and to provide a greater presence to the park area in front. 

The application included the provision of an active travel plan, including the public footpaths and linkage into the country park. Provision for a Pegasus crossing on the bridleway would also be provided.

Within the developments, 550 houses could be occupied before the relief road was operational. 

Exercising the Chair’s discretion, the Agent, an Objector and the Ward Member were invited to address the committee.  All declined.

Members raised concerns that there were a number of outstanding highways issues and requested that the recommendation be strengthened to ensure these issues were resolved. The Principal Planning Officer advised that virtually all of the issues had been resolved as set out in the written update.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the officer’s report and presentation, the address of the public speakers and the written and verbal updates.

Councillor Stephen Hibbert proposed the application be approved, this was seconded by Councillor James Hill and, being put to the meeting, was declared carried unanimous.

RESOLVED:

To delegate to the Assistant Director for Growth, Climate and Regeneration to grant permission subject to:

1.  Conditions (And any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary); and

2.  Receipt of satisfactory amendments regarding the design, layout and landscaping;

If the design, layout and landscaping are not satisfactorily resolved by 21 July 2022 and not extension of time has been agreed between the parties it further recommended that the Assistant Director for Growth, Climate and Regeneration is given delegated authority to refuse the application on the following grounds

·      Unacceptable design in conflict with the approved Norwood Farm Design Code and/or the South Northants Design Guide and/or

·      Loss of privacy for existing residential occupiers and unacceptable levels of privacy for future occupiers and/or;

·       Harm to highway safety and/or;

·       Harm to wildlife/biodiversity