Agenda item

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 and Enforcement advised that there was a work stream on Section 106 agreements to make sure they were consistent in the future across all areas. Work was also underway on a new developer contribution Supplementary Planning Document.

In response to a member’s enquiry, the Head of Development Management and Enforcement highlighted that building regulations did include energy efficiency requirements.

The Chair advised that Councillor Herring could not vote as she had arrived late to the meeting.

Councillor John Shephard proposed the application be approved, this was seconded by Councillor Ken Pritchard and, being put to the meeting, was declared carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That the Assistant Director for Planning be given delegated powers to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report (and any amendments to those conditions or additional condition as deemed necessary).