Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2024, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

The Case Officer advised that since the publication of the report, the LLFA (Lead Local Flood Authority) Engineer had responded to the consultation exercise to confirm a position of no objection, subject to the use of the following conditions:

·       Conformity with flood risk assessment submitted with the application;

·       Planning drainage levels;

·       Detailed drainage plans;

·       Hydraulic modelling study;

·       Surface water drainage calculations;

·       Provision of as built drainage plans;

·       Drainage system, validation report;

·       UU adoption details;

·       Flood conveyance rate; and

·       Watercourse diversion consent details.

Further to the publication of the AB Update List, it was noted that the Council’s Ecology Advisor recommended that a landscape and ecological management plan be attached to the planning permission, which the applicant has agreed to.  Also, several points of clarification were made to the published report – as listed in the AB Update List.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Tiwana, a representative of the Applicant.  He commented inter alia that:

·       The site was a strategic housing location and would comprise high quality starter homes, 20% of which are affordable;

·       The site would provide housing choices for local people;

·       A cycle path and walking routes would be included as well as natural features such as trees and grassed areas;

·       Boundary treatments are in place;

·       An area of offsite open space was included in the proposal; and

·       No objections had been raised from statutory consultees.

Members were referred to the plans showing the open space and it was noted that the area of open space provided on site was deficient, but the Applicant has agreed to an offsite contribution to mitigate this shortfall.  This would be secured by way of a S106 agreement.  The Applicant has also agreed to fund mitigation regarding off site recreational pressure on ecological sensitive sites.

Members raised concerns on the demand of local services such as schools and GP’s due to the development – page 26 of the report outlined the impacts on these.  In response to queries on active travel corridors, it was reported that two cycle paths and one footpath were included in the plans.  Officers also explained the alternative approach being taken to the open space referred to above and how this made effective and efficient use of S106 contributions.

The Committee voted to approve the application, subject to the conditions listed below, and the additional ones recommended by the LLFA and the Ecology Advisor.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the following:

a)    Section 106 Agreement that secures the terms set out in the Legal Agreement section of this report;

b)    Schedule of conditions set out below, with any additional conditions recommended through the resolution of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) compliance issue to be added to this list; and

c)     That if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement is not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Director – Planning and Transportation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

The planning application was previously considered at the August 2024 Development Management Committee meeting.  A decision on the proposal was deferred following a motion approved by Members that sought to undertake a site visit, to understand the scheme’s potential impacts upon the existing town centre parking provision at the application site.  The site visit had been completed.

Members noted the technical note that was submitted by the Applicant and published with the AB Update List.  Further, an update on the number of car parking spaces that would be available after the development of the site was presented.

The Committee was addressed by local Ward Councillor Teeling, who objected to the proposals and presented the following arguments, inter alia:

·       There were mistakes made during the consultation period as local businesses and members of the public were not informed; they first heard about the development in the local newspaper;

·       Due to the above it was too late for people to submit their objections:

·       There was no need for food outlets of this nature in the area;

·       If these businesses failed in the future the buildings would be a blight on the area;

·       The increased volume of traffic and highway safety would be an issue;

·       There would be an increase in traffic at the small roundabout near Tesco and the retail park that was already congested;

·       There were 4 schools and one nursery in close proximity to the site;

·       There will be a loss of parking spaces;

·       There will be an increase in delivery vehicles;

·       There would be no benefit to the economy – the operators paid minimum wage and would not offer apprenticeships, for example;

·       Weight should be given to the viability of the Town Centre – footfall may reduce there;

·       Would the operators comply with environmental policies to prevent air pollution from extra cars and smells from the outlets – this area was already a hot spot for air pollution;

·       Littering would be a problem;

·       The proposals would be detrimental to the health of children and there was already a Public Health obesity crisis amongst school children; and

·       The Council’s priority on Climate Change was referred to.

The Committee was then addressed by Mr Wiseman, a representative of the Applicant.  He stated:

·       The site already had outline planning permission for one drive through;

·       Clarity on highways and parking matters – there would be a net loss of 124 spaces, with 690 spaces remaining on the car park;

·       A detailed assessment of ANPR information was undertaken which showed that there would still be significant capacity in the car park and this would remain post development;

·       A transport assessment was also undertaken where it was found that there would be no impact on the highway network as a result of the development;

·       The outlets would be serviced as the existing ones were and there were no incidents reported; and

·       There were no objections from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

Members noted the information from the AB Update List relating to  comments made by the Open Spaces and Highways Departments, as well as the recommendation for an additional condition restricting the height of any future external transformer or other plant and machinery to 4.2m.

The Committee was addressed by local Ward Councillor Peter Lloyd Jones, who spoke objecting to the proposal on behalf of the residents of Farnley Close.  He argued inter alia:

·       That the residents of Farnley Close were advised when they bought their properties that the area behind their houses was protected from development;

·       The original location for a substation was on Sandymoor to service  the new housing developments, however it was found that a second one would be needed; 

·       Due to cabling  issues associated with two substations, it was decided by SPEN to move to a new location on Windmill Hill Avenue and build a larger capacity substation; and

·       The outlook for the residents of Farnley Close will be greatly affected by the development of this substation.

The Committee was then addressed by local Ward Councillor Ryan, who also spoke against the proposal.  He stated that he did not object to the substation itself, just its location.  He cited the following inter alia:

·       It was understood that the Grid in the area needed reinforcing to accommodate new developments and for the future;

·       This proposal imposed issues for the existing residents of Farnley Close who have, in some cases, lived there for 30 years.  The view from their properties would be detrimental and affect the value of their homes;

·       The substation being proposed was huge – 30m x 24.5m x 24.5m and was only 2 metres from the site boundary;

·       The site is outside the Sandymoor South boundary;

·       This was a departure from the DALP and the site is allocated Greenbelt land;

·       There was a query relating to the ownership of the land; and

·       It was hard to believe that this was the only available site for a substation.

Councillor Ryan requested that the Committee refuse the application and that the Applicant looks for a site located in Sandymoor.

Mr Cove, a representative of the Applicant, then addressed the Committee.  In response to the query regarding the ownership of the land, he confirmed that SPEN had owned it since 2001.  He made the following comments inter alia:

·       Homes England was a public body that funded new and affordable housing in England;

·       The proposal was for a substation which was a critical piece of infrastructure needed for the supply of power to new homes and existing homes in Windmill Hill, Sandymoor and Murdishaw;

·       The smallest footprint possible was used;

·       Biodiversity and planting strategies would be included;

·       Trees measuring 4.5 metres would be planted along the boundary line immediately after the development was complete;

·       Sound levels from the substation would be kept to minimum; and

·       There were no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.