B/14/0210
BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
Planning Committee - 14 October 2014Reference Number: / B/14/0210 / Application Expiry Date / 16 September 2014
Application Type: / Outline Planning Permission
Proposal Description / Hybrid planning application (part outline, part full) for:
1. Erection of a Children's Centre, Group Room buildings and play area for the Hawthorn Tree School with all details submitted in full.
2. Erection of 79 dwellings in outline with all matters reserved.
At: / Land adjacent and to the south of Hawthorn Tree School on the east side of Toot Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 0PT
For: / Mr M Royal, Lealand Homes Ltd
Third Party Reps: 2 / Parish: / Fishtoft Parish Council
Ward Name: / Fishtoft
Author of Report: / Paul Edwards / Date of Report: / 29 September 2014
MAIN RECOMMENDATION: DELEGATE TO GRANT subject to conclusion of a planning obligation
1.0 REASON FOR REPORT
1.1 This application is presented to the Planning Committee due to the scale and nature of the application. The application is contrary to the development plan as a whole; there are a number of representations to report and there is a second but unrelated application on an adjacent site, which also includes for a new school nursery.
2.0 THE APPLICATION, BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
2.1 This is one of two present applications for the development of land off Toot Lane. The other application is B/14/0103 for Land to the West of Toot Lane and the report for that application follows this report. The sites are to be the subject of a Committee site visit on the morning of the Committee meeting.
2.2 This application has been the subject of pre-application meetings and correspondence since January 2014 and this resulted in some significant changes to the, then, indicative layout. The application is in a hybrid form in that within the outline application, full details are submitted for the proposed Children’s Centre. This would be single storey under a hipped and ridged roof, to replace the existing facility north of the Hawthorn Tree Primary School (HTS) and with additional play space behind it for the HTS, accessed through the existing HTS site. I understand that the Group Room proposed will be a facility shared between the Children’s Centre and the School and this is a detached building, flat roofed cedar clad building behind the Centre adjacent to the existing school boundary. A new pedestrian access is proposed off the frontage to Toot Lane. The remainder of the proposed development for 79 houses is with all matters (design, layout, appearance and landscaping) except access reserved for future submission and consideration.
2.3 The site area totals 3.28ha of agricultural land which is bounded to the west by the existing carriageway of Toot Lane. The existing Primary School (HTS) and its curtilage are to the north. The eastern application site boundary is defined by the rear boundaries of single storey properties on Ward Crescent and the southern application site boundary is marked by a private, open land drain.
2.4 Toot Lane here is subject to a 30mph speed limit and the road is marked with a School Safety Zone - a highway authority mechanism to seek to control vehicular activity in the vicinity of the school entrance- which extends across the frontage of both facilities on both sides of the road. There is a combined cycle/ footway on the east side for the entire length of Toot Lane, whilst the carriageway on the west side ends against the agricultural land without kerbs or footway.
2.5 The indicative layout shows 79 houses with a new estate road access onto Toot Lane at the southern end of its Toot Lane frontage. Indicative public open space is included and
30 affordable (24 units) in the tenure split 60% affordable rented and 40% shared ownership are proposed. The land to be gifted to the Children’s Centre and for future HTS expansion is approximately 0.4ha. A confidential Viability Assessment accompanies the application which shows that viability is marginal but the applicants indicate they are willing to bring the site forward with these levels of return. The application has not changed since it was first submitted.
2.6 The existing Children’s Centre offers an 8am to 6pm service Monday to Friday, fifty weeks of the year. Childcare in the new building would be available, the applicants say, with up to 18 staff dependent upon pupil numbers.
2.7 Accompanying the application is a Statement of Community Involvement which sets out the outcomes from a public meeting held in April 2014. The applicants say that the scheme was revised to take account of comments and questionnaire response forms from that exercise are included with the application. Out of 36 responses received, the applicant calculates that 63% supported the application, 33% objected and the remainder where ‘maybes’.
2.8 There are no records of any previous applications for housing on this land.
3.0 POLICY
3.1 The application site is outside of but abuts Boston’s settlement development limits and has no allocation(s).The effect of s.38 (6) of the 2004 Act is that decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan is the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan 1999.
3.2 There are no listed buildings, protected trees, Conservation Areas or Scheduled Ancient Monuments within or close to the site boundaries. The quality of the agricultural land appears from our DEFRA records to be of the highest quality, Grade 1.
3.3 The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment shows the site is in the ‘Danger for Most’ hazard category with a Medium Tidal Flood Probability. The site is in the flood depth range of 0.5m to 1m. The application proposes finished floor levels of all houses and the Children’s Centre to be raised 1m above existing ground levels.
3.4 Relevant policies which will be material in the consideration of this application are:
· Policy G1 – Amenity (the standard development control policy with the substantial harm test)
· Policy G2 – Wildlife and Landscape Resources (significant adverse impact test upon existing landscape, wildlife and vegetation resources)
· Policy G3 – surface and foul water disposal (This policy seeks to resist developments that do not provide satisfactory drainage provision)
· Policy G6 – Vehicular and pedestrian access (This policy seeks to resist development that would harm highway safety)
· Policy H4 – Open Space in Housing Estates (seeks appropriate proportions of open space in development of 20 houses or more)
· Policy C8 – Stump views (would not grant any development which would obstruct public views)
· Policy CO1 – Development in the Countryside (would not grant development in the countryside unless supported by other policies)
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
3.5 At the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the way in which this ‘golden thread’ should run through decision making is set out at the Framework’s para 10.18.
3.6 On housing, the Framework says that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and at paragraph 49 it states: “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. It is common ground and accepted that the Borough does not have an available five year supply of housing land and thus the housing allocations and housing supply policies in the Plan are not up to date.
3.7The number of applications and consents to date (including the recent decision of the Secretary of State not to call in ‘The Quadrant’ application (B/14/0165) considered by this Committee on 5 August 2014) means that the shortfall against the five year supply is reducing each time a consent is issued. However, the supply of consents has to be assessed through the Local Plan process to determine if they are deliverable, available and achievable. So, although a point will come when a five year supply (plus the 20% buffer – 6 year) has been reached, this will be very dependent upon the actual deliverability of consented sites and, where they are phased; how much could come forward in the initial 6 year period. Suffice to say at this time, applications may continue to enjoy the Framework’s presumption that we do not have a 5 (6) year supply of deliverable housing land. None the less, applications will have to demonstrate that their proposals are for sustainable development in the context of the NPPF
3.8 At para 14 the Framework says, on decision taking:
· “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and
· where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the polices in this Framework taken as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”
3.9 Amongst the twelve core planning principles in the Framework that are relevant here are:
· Proactively drive sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business, infrastructure and thriving places
· Seek high quality design and good standards of amenity
· Recognise intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside
· Support transition to low carbon future – taking full account of flood risk
· Promote mixed use development and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land
· Make fullest possible use of public transport and focus significant development in locations that are or can be made sustainable
· Deliver sufficient community and cultural services to meet local needs
3.10 The Committee is aware of the significant weight which the Framework says should be given to supporting economic growth and under the Housing and Healthy Communities heading of the aims of planning for a mix based upon current and future trends, mixed use development, active street frontages, safe and accessible development and high quality open space (para 69).
3.11 Great importance is given to sufficient choice of school places and authorities should give great weight to expand and alter schools and seek to resolve planning issues before applications are submitted (para 72). The contribution that access to high quality open space, and sport and recreation can make to healthy communities is emphasised (para 73). Under the Natural Environment heading, account should be taken of the economic benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land and aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Objections and comments on the application have been received from:
106 Ward Crescent
46 Bladon Estate (Ward Crescent)
· Toot Lane already the subject of the application B/14/0103 for 340 houses which must go a long way to meeting demand. That application is on land that has been designated for a long time. That one should be approved first and then allow demand to prove itself before this one on designated farmland
· This application does not include any highway improvements to deal with school related congestion on Toot Lane which is a bottle neck, this will only exacerbate the problem
· Concerned about privacy of existing bungalows, and how can they not build bungalows for flood risk reasons when the Bladon Estate is bungalows. Six meter back gardens will be too close and a fence will affect outlook
· Noise and distrurbance to existing elderly residents, noise from children and noise, dust and disturbance during construction - and who will compensate them for all the mess
4.2 The Headteacher of the HTS supports the application but there is signifncant concern expressed about the additonal traffic. Access would be across the existing cycle way/footpath. The Council should recognise the safety concern and should implement measures to alleviate concerns such as a new car park/ park and stride area. Both the school and the Children’s Centre will grow/ are growing and parents are reluctant to allow unaccompanied travel since the school is sited away from many homes. Opportunity to build more homes, provide a larger more permanent Childern’s Centre and make an impact on a significant long term health and safety issue. To not acknowledge these issues is a missed opportunity.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 The County Highway Authority has responded in detail and concludes that subject to compliance with recommended conditions the development proposed in this Application could be undertaken and occupied without causing a materially harmful impact upon the safety or capacity of the local highway network and accordingly, the Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
5.2 In summary, the Authoirty advises that traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated on the existing local highway network without the need for the completion of highway infrastructure improvement works elsewhere. The access onto Toot Lane is at a point where there is adequate visibility and movements at the proposed junction would not conflict with the movements at the junction for the residential development proposed in the current Planning Application B/14/0103 on the west side of Toot Lane should both applications be approved. The authority continues:
‘Unlike the B/14/0103 Application for residential development on the west side of Toot Lane, this application makes no specific allowances for addressing the on-street parking that presently occurs along the west side of Toot Lane, at the beginning and end of the school day. However, those parked vehicles are there wholly as a consequence of the school and the nursery being where they are and not are attributable to the proposed development (my emphasis). It is doubtful that a reason for refusing this application on the grounds of the potential conflict between the proposed development and the vehicles that are parked along Toot Lane for two relatively brief periods at the beginning and end of the school day could be sustained. In fact, the proposed development could potentially provide some improvement to the on-street parking situation.’