Agenda item

The planning application was for the renewal of planning permission 91/00001/OUT – Housing, local facilities, open space and infrastructure at Paston Reserve, Newborough Road, Paston, Peterborough, the discharge of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 91/00001/OUT, and a deed of variation.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission 15/01771/WCPP be granted, application 15/01363/DISCHG be approved and the deed of variation be approved, subject to the completion of relevant S106 Agreements the conditions set out in the report. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

Councillor Yonga, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was suggested that to support the application, basic infrastructure would need to be provided and more community facilities such as shops, medical clinics, play areas and public transport systems;

·         Concerns were raised over the confusing nature of the application. It was commented that it was difficult to understand whether the applications were individual or came together as a package;

·         It was suggested that whatever the outcome of the application, a school and community centre were necessary basic features which must be provided. It was stated that there was no community centre in Manor Drive and residents had to cross a dangerous road to access community facilities. An agreement to these requests was sought; and

·         It was suggested that the lack of replies throughout the consultations was due to the belief that the Council would not deliver on these requests due to past experience.

Nolan Tucker, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was shown within the report that work had been undertaken to secure consent for the development to proceed and to meet the aspirations of the Council to find land to build a secondary school. A combination of these efforts had resulted in these applications;

·         Within the S106 Agreement, it was stated that open space would be brought further forward and that there would be land for a primary and a secondary school;

·         Community centres as standalone facilities were not often provided anymore. It was more likely that they would be provided alongside another function, for example an educational facility. Within the S106 Agreement, financial provision was provided to deliver these facilities;

·         The drainage problem had been identified during the second phase of development when the Drainage Strategy was reviewed. Consent was granted to ensure that the drainage problem would be fixed and a strategy to do so had been agreed; and

·         Mr Tucker was not aware of any problems with the foul water drainage system. A condition would be included within any permission granted to ensure drainage was fit for use.

In response to a number of points raised, the Head of Development and Construction advised that the original S106 Agreement proposed individual community buildings but these had been held to be undeliverable. As a result, the facility would be provided through the primary school and the potential secondary school. Development of the primary school had been delayed due to the recession however it would be completed earlier than under the original development proposals. It was also advised that a full bus service could come into force once the subsidy was enough to self-sustain it but this was a long way off on this development. A contribution of £462,000 is being made in three staged payments for bus provision. The first payment will be made at the 150^th dwelling. If the Committee wish to increase this payment, that would have to be taken away from something else within the S106 Agreement.

In addition, the Head of Development and Construction advised that planning officers had worked with residents to find alternative ways to provide play facilities but faced challenges due to tabled solutions being rejected by residents. While shops had been included in the planning permission for the original development at Paston Reserve, permission for housing had been granted due to lack of interest. Shops had never been included in this application and could not be inserted into the permission at this stage. Money towards heath was secured through the S106. Similarly, under the terms of the existing legal agreement for planning permission, it was advised that that legal agreement rolled over to any other planning agreements and were still binding.

The Committee discussed the application and commented that the development had been ten years in the coming and had developed considerably over this period. It was further discussed that during consultations, there was very little objection to the development.

The Committee questioned the deed of variation request and was unhappy to have been put into a position where a choice had to be made between a school and affordable housing despite a desperate need for both.

In response to a question, the Head of Development and Construction clarified that if the land was utilised to build a secondary school then no further affordable housing would be built on site. If the Council did not wish to build a secondary school on the site then more affordable housing would be forthcoming.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted for application 15/01771/WCPP, as per officer recommendation, including the delegation of authority to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to finalise the drainage strategy, to negotiate with the applicant on the S106 trigger points and form of the Agreement, and to adjust and amend the conditions to ensure that they are appropriately updated. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that:

1)    Application 15/01771/WCPP is GRANTED subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and the conditions set out in the update report; and

2)    Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to finalise the drainage strategy, to negotiate with the applicant on the S106 trigger points and form of the Agreement, and to adjust and amend the conditions to ensure that they are appropriately updated.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that application 15/01363/DISCHG be approved, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that:

1)    Application 15/01363/DISCHG is APPROVED and conditions 2 and 3 in respect of the amended master plan and phasing plan discharged; and

2)    Authority delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to agree any further adjustments to the master plan as may be appropriate, especially in relation to the drainage proposals.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that the deed of variation be approved, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried eight voting in favour, two voting against.

RESOLVED: (eight voted in favour, two voted against) that:

1)    The deed of variation is APPROVED; and

2)    Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to complete negotiations, including any changes to the S106 trigger points or form of the Agreement.

Reasons for the decision

Paston Reserve was an allocated housing site the development of which would help meet the city’s housing needs. As such the principle of extending the period of time within which reserved matters applications could be submitted is supported in principle. There had not been any changes in policy or in local circumstance which would render the current proposal unacceptable. The development was therefore considered to be compliant with policies CS1, CS3, CS5, CS12, CS13, CS16 and CS17 of the adopted Core Strategy, policy SA1 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD and policies PP4, PP12, PP16 and PP17 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

The proposed changes to the master plan and associated phasing of the scheme were considered to be acceptable in the context of securing land for a new secondary school, notwithstanding the comments from the Local Highway Authority regarding Newborough Road. The development was therefore considered to be comply with policies CS16 and CS17 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies PP3, PP4, PP12, PP14, PP16 and PP17 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

The proposed change to the affordable housing provision was considered to be acceptable in lieu of the provision of land for a secondary school.