Agenda item

To consider an application for the Erection of 51 private dwelling houses with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Planning Committee considered application 20/0794 for the erection of 51 private dwelling houses with associated access, parking and landscaping on land at Ryscar Way, Blackpool.

Ms Clare Johnson, Principal Planning Officer, outlined the report and provided a summary of the application details, scale and nature. The application was a major housing proposal situated on council-owned land and the boundary between Blackpool Council and Wyre Council ran through the east of the site, with the access being off Faraday Way in Wyre. A corresponding application had been made to Wyre Borough Council. 

The proposed scheme would make a significant contribution to meeting the Borough’s housing needs and planning permission was recommended for approval subject to the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement relating to a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and a contribution towards an extension at St Paul’s surgery and reconfiguration at Moor Park Health Centre. A further request for a contribution of £150,831 from the NHS Foundation Trust had been submitted, however Ms Johnson clarified to the Committee that Section 106 funding could not be used as a means to stop-gap public sector funding and was unacceptable as a planning obligation. Therefore the officer recommendation was that the Committee should not require the developer to make the contribution requested by the NHS Foundation Trust.

The scheme included 16 affordable housing units which would be accessed off Ryscar Way, and the remaining 35 units would be accessed off a new road off Faraday Way. The site was close to schools, employment opportunities, green space and several bus routes. The smaller houses fell short of the nationally described space standards but would be sufficient to meet the needs of the future occupiers. The layout and separation distances were considered to be sufficient to protect privacy. Any undue amenity impacts arising from noise during construction could be adequately avoided through the imposition of the conditions recommended.

Ms Johnson noted that the smaller houses fell short of the nationally described space standards but would be sufficient to meet the needs of the future occupiers. The layout and separation distances were considered to be sufficient to protect privacy. Any undue amenity impacts arising from noise during construction could be adequately avoided through the imposition of the conditions recommended.

In respect of ecology matters, Ms Johnson informed the Committee that the proposed scheme would result in the loss of a hedgerow along the north and west of the site. Discussion had taken place with the Council’s ecology consultants and had resulted in submission of a more robust indicative landscaping scheme which indicated replacement hedgerow planting in the public open space, comprising a range of native hedgerow planting to mitigate the loss of the existing hedgerow along with more than 100 heavy standard trees, smaller trees and shrubs, a wildflower meadow and aquatic planting as appropriate had been secured which would benefit biodiversity, and those details could be agreed by condition.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the update note which contained a representation and objection to the scheme from Mr Paul Maynard MP. The update note corrected an error in paragraph 11.7.9 of the officer report to state that the outline permission included the retention of the hedgerow to the west along the public open space, but not along the northern boundary. In addition the update note recommended amendment to condition 3.

The development was considered to constitute sustainable development and Members were recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions listed at the end of the officer report, the amended condition in the update report and the signing of a Section 106 agreement to secure health and public open space contributions.

Mr Brian Holt spoke in objection to the application and raised concerns regarding road safety and issues with speeding traffic around the site. He drew the Committee’s attention to previous planning history for the site and noted that, in his opinion, 51 houses was too large a number, in in particular the houses fronting onto Ryscar Way. He reiterated his concerns regarding speeding traffic and asked that mitigations such as speed bumps be considered and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Ms Rachel Monks, sharing the public speaking time with Mr Holt, spoke in objection to the application and raised concerns regarding dangerous driving and the dangers to pets and children.

Mr Andrew Booth, as the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and informed the Committee that this was a £13m investment into the area from a family-owned Blackpool business. The application was for high quality family housing which would bring regeneration and employment benefits. A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment had been carried out along with discussions with relevant flood authorities.  Ecology and topographical issues with regarding to the hedgerows had been mitigated by the provision of high-quality new hedgerows and this would be controlled by robust planning condition. Only 16 of the units were accessible from Ryscar Way following discussions with the Highways Authorities. The application would provide affordable housing managed by Great Places Housing.

Councillor Farrell spoke on the application as a Ward Councillor and raised residents’ concerns regarding flooding and speeding traffic. She displayed pictures of flooding which had been provided to her by residents and raised concerns regarding the road infrastructure in the area and the loss of hedgerows.  Concerns were also noted regarding the siting of the affordable housing, which located all the properties into one corner of the development, which she considered to be unacceptable.

The Chair sought the opinion of Mr Latif Patel, Network and Planning Projects Manager. Mr Patel noted that the application was considered to be acceptable, however it could be beneficial for the developer to undertake a speed survey to determine the actual traffic speed and to address concerns.

Miss Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, addressed the Committee and clarified that a speed survey could be secured by condition.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that although the proposed scheme was on Council-owned land, any benefit to the Council from this was not a planning consideration. It was noted that the size of the houses did fall short of the Nationally Described Space Standards in terms of gross internal floor space. Concerns were also raised regarding the siting of the affordable housing in one area of the site. The Committee noted that hedgerows would be removed, although replacement was controlled by condition.

Miss Parker addressed the concerns and queries raised by the Committee and with respect to flooding, noted that a housing development would provide a drainage system and strategy and that no objections had been raised by drainage officers. With respect to air quality, the application was not sited in an air quality management area. The siting of the affordable housing had been done in a manner that registered providers preferred and there was a chance that a provider may not want to take the properties on if they were dispersed too far across the development. She also explained that the Council did not currently have a planning policy that applied minimum space standards to new build properties.

The Chair noted that there were 35 conditions proposed for the application and that officers were satisfied that these conditions were adequate. It was clarified that only 14 houses accessed the estate via Ryscar Way and separate condition could be considered to request that a traffic survey be carried out.

The Committee discussed traffic concerns further and Mr Patel stated that the minimum time to conduct a traffic/speed survey for would be for two weeks to obtain a full picture of the volume, speed and classification of vehicles. The Committee noted Mr Patel’s comments and felt that the applicant should have carried out a traffic survey prior to the application coming before the Committee.

Resolved:

To defer the application to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to allow the applicant to carry out a traffic and speed survey and to provide a scheme of highway works.