Agenda item

To consider a planning application for the erection of 90 x two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings with associated car parking, garages, boundary treatment, landscaping, including attenuation basin, and highway works.

The Committee considered planning application 20/0021 that sought permission for the erection of 90 x two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings with associated car parking, garages, boundary treatment, landscaping, including attenuation basin, and highway works.

Ms Parker, Head of Development Management, provided an overview of the application and presented the site location, layout plans and aerial view of the site.  She referred to a previous hybrid application that had been granted full planning permission for a housing development on part of the site and an outline planning permission for employment use on the southern area of the site, which was the location of the current application.  Ms Parker referred to a number of representations received in objection to the proposal

that had been addressed in the officer’s report and update note.  Ms Parker referred to

the recommendation for the Committee to support the proposal in principle, subject to

conditions and a Section 106 agreement and deferral from the Secretary of State as it represented a departure from the Local Plan. She advised that the Secretary of State had the option to call the application in for his own determination or refer it back to the Council for determination.  The Committee was advised that the applicant, following an unsuccessful period of marketing, had demonstrated that there was currently no appetite for employment use on the land. 

Ms Parker acknowledged that there was no unmet need for housing within Blackpool, however, she advised on the benefits of a large scale development in terms of meeting future requirements for housing supply.  Ms Parker also acknowledged that whilst the proposed development’s housing mix conflicted with policy, a viability appraisal had demonstrated that the required housing mix could not be met if the scheme was to remain viable.  This also demonstrated that the necessary planning obligations could not be met in full. A contribution of £125,000 had been agreed and would be secured through a Section 106 agreement if approval was granted.  Ms Parker reported her view of the benefit of directing this contribution towards local health care provision and public open space requirements, particularly given the existing affordable housing provision in the area.

Ms Parker concluded by referring to the lack of objections from statutory consultees and the conditions suggested that would be attached to the planning permission, if approved.

Mr Daley, a resident of Phase 1 of the development, spoke in objection to the application and referred to the concerns raised by residents of the same development as detailed in the update note. He reported on unresolved issues with Phase 1 of the development and disputed the developer’s and planning officer’s view on the relevance of many of the concerns raised. He highlighted crime and anti-social behaviour issues that in his view could have been prevented through the imposition of appropriate security conditions.  Other questions and concerns raised related to drainage, highways, the local play area, lack of available green space and the historic nature of the Supplementary Planning Guidance 11.  He also questioned the amount and distribution of the financial contribution and the community value of Phase 1 of the development.

Ms Beardsley, the Applicant’s Agent spoke in support of the application and responded to some of the concerns raised by the objector.  She advised that the local play area met current minimum standards and that some open space would be provided within the site, and referred to the financial contribution towards the provision of off site open space that would be subject to a Section 106 agreement. She also referred to drainage information that was publicly available and the marketing report that had demonstrated a lack of interest from prospective employment operators which was also available to the public.  She concluded by reporting on her view of the benefit of the development to the local economy.

Ms Parker, referred to the condition regarding security lighting that would be attached to the planning permission if granted and explained the standard procedure for agreeing the details of conditions as part of a separate application. She also confirmed that insurance liability for the play area was not a valid planning consideration.  Ms Parker also advised that the Supplementary Planning Guidance 11 was currently being updated through the local plan process.  She advised on the annual publication of a schedule of spend from financial contributions and the procedure for determining the allocation of funds.

The Committee considered the application at length and raised concerns relating to the absence of certain statutory consultee responses, the density of the development and failure to meet the national standards in terms of floor and bed space, the housing mix and lack of affordable housing, the designation of the land for employment uses and lack of green space and the allocation of the financial contribution.  Concern was also raised over restrictive covenants imposed by the developer at point of sale relating to the installation of renewable energy equipment, particularly solar panels. 

Ms Parker responded by acknowledging that the full requirement for open space had not been met, however, the standard requirement for separation distances including garden length had been met.  With regards to the national floor space standards, Ms Parker advised that there was no policy currently that required minimum standards for new build housing developments.  Whilst she acknowledged that not all consultees had responded, she emphasised that they had all been consulted and been given the opportunity to respond.  In terms of meeting all the requirements for housing mix, affordable housing and open space, Ms Parker referred to the viability of the development. She also reported on lack of interest for industrial development on the site despite the long term designation of the site for employment use, and the proposal to allocate the land for housing use in emerging policy.  With regards to solar panels and other energy saving initiatives, Ms Parker reported that there were no planning restrictions to prevent their installation, but that the covenants to be required by the developer were not a material planning consideration.  In response to further questions, Ms Parker referred to the viability appraisal submitted by the applicant and verified by an independent consultant that demonstrated that it was unviable to meet all the required obligations in terms of housing mix and affordable housing and reported her view that on balance, given the town’s housing needs, the proposed development was considered acceptable.  Ms Parker reminded the Committee that where there was more than one phase of a development each application had to be determined on its own merits.

Following further discussion, the Committee continued to express concern regarding the density of the development and lack of green space.

Resolved: To defer a decision on the application to the next meeting to provide the opportunity for the Head of Development Management to agree a reduction in the number of units with the developer and in the event that this was unsuccessful the report to Committee to include suggested reasons for refusal based on the Committee’s concerns regarding the availability of green space.