Agenda item

To consider planning application 22/0042 for the erection of 11 single private dwelling houses with associated parking and landscaping and access from Cherry Tree Road following demolition of 74 Cherry Tree Road.

Ms Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, presented the report and reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred from the December 2022 meeting in order to allow the applicant or his representative agent the opportunity to attend and answer the questions of the Committee in respect of highways and drainage matters.

Ms Parker provided the Committee with an overview of the application, the site, planning history and noted that this was a backland site, classified as greenfield land and that the proposed demolition of number 74 Cherry Tree Road would provide a two-way access directly off Cherry Tree Road. Representations against the application had been included within the officer report and the Committee was advised that site was not allocated or safeguarded for an alternative use. Although the third bedrooms fell short of minimum standards, these rooms could be used for alternative purposes and, as the proposal would make a modest contribution to the borough’s housing supply and subject to meeting the relevant planning obligations, the development was considered to be acceptable in principle.

In respect of neighbour amenity, Ms Parker outlined the consideration that had been given to the impact of the development, with some of the properties proposed to be dormer bungalows, to lower ridge levels. All would be sufficiently separated from existing properties. The site spacing was considered to be acceptable and in order to create a more engaging sense of arrival, the property on plot 6 would face towards the access road.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that the proposed access arrangements had been assessed by the Council’s Highways Officer and was considered to be acceptable. She referenced comments made by Councillors Burdess and Hutton at the December 2022 Planning Committee meeting and clarified that neither Mr John Blackledge, Director of Community and Environmental Services, nor Mr Ian Large, Head of Highways and Traffic Management Services had objected to the proposal, but had merely passed informal comment whilst in the area with Councillors on other business.

In respect of drainage proposals, these had been considered by United Utilities and the Council’s drainage officer and were acceptable with the site draining to the existing combined sewer as it had been demonstrated that neither infiltration nor use of the existing watercourse were viable options. As the surface water run-off would be restricted to greenfield rates, no unacceptable impacts on flood risk were anticipated. Ms Parker noted residents’ comments regarding the dyke on the site and advised the Committee that due to its historic disrepair and the fact that it was blocked, the dyke was not considered to constitute a drainage asset. The proposed drainage system had been designed to properly drain the site as a whole and had been approved by the relevant consultees.

The site had already been cleared, however in terms of biodiversity, the development would be required to provide ecological enhancement which could be secured through condition, as would management of Japanese knotweed on the site and no material impact on environmental quality had been identified or anticipated.

The Committee was asked to resolve to support the application and to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Mr Brian Milton spoke in objection to the application as a local resident and raised concerns regarding drainage, the dyke and potential for flooding. He advised the Committee that the site had been re-wilded with trees which had been subsequently cleared by the developer. He referenced historical developments within Blackpool that had suffered from drainage issues and if this were to happen due to development on this site, how it would be addressed. He also advised the Committee that some of the land had been used for fly-tipping.

Councillor Paula Burdess spoke in her capacity as a Councillor for Clifton Ward and raised residents’ concerns regarding privacy, clearance of trees on the site, lack of communication from the developer and the need to restore ecological balance. She raised concerns regarding drainage, advised the Committee that the dyke had filled up and referenced photographs taken on 10 January 2023 that she stated showed issues with the dyke. She raised further concerns regarding traffic, particularly during rush hour and with the development site being in a residential area and near schools. She advised the Committee that a resident also felt that the development was encroaching on their private property.

Ms Parker addressed the points raised by Mr Milton and Councillor Burdess and advised that the developer had been within his rights to clear the site as the trees were not protected and advised the Committee that no planning weight could be given to the developer’s actions. She advised that the issue raised by Councillor Burdess regarding alleged encroachment onto private property would be a private matter and again, no planning weight could be given to it. Ms Parker reiterated that neither the Council’s drainage officers, nor United Utilities had objected to the proposed drainage scheme.

Councillor Adrian Hutton also spoke in his capacity as a Councillor for Clifton Ward and raised concerns about the level of traffic that the development site could generate on a busy Blackpool road. He also stated that, in his view, the access road was not wide enough and could cause issues for refuse or emergency vehicles. He raised concerns regarding the land marked blue on the plans and stated the residents had advised him they had been informed that this would be used for site cabins, and that removal of the cabins could be difficult once the development was complete. He felt that the land should not be built on and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that the land marked blue on the plan was outside of the application area and that if it was intended to be used as a construction compound as allowed by Permitted Development rights, then the land would have to be cleared and restored to its original state after that usage.

Mr Keith Allen, Highways and Traffic Development Control Officer, addressed the points made by Mr Milton, Councillor Burdess and Councillor Hutton and advised the Committee the road was 6 metres wide and a Council refuse truck was 2.5 metres wide and that the largest fire brigade vehicle was 3 metres wide. The proposed access road had been considered in line with Government and local guidance and no concerns had been raised during considerations and width calculations and Mr Allen noted that the Fire Service had not raised any objections.

The Committee discussed the application and raised concerns regarding width of the access road, increased levels of traffic, the third bedroom falling short of national minimum standards, the use of the land marked blue and the impact on residents.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that although the third bedroom did fall short of national standards, it was considered to be acceptable as the third bedroom could be used as an ancillary room and that under the current local plan there was no requirement to meet those standards. Under Part of Two of the Local Plan, which would be put before Council on 1 February 2023, only 20% of properties would be required to meet those standards.

Mr David Hadwin addressed the Committee to address any questions where the Committee felt that the views of the applicant would be useful. He clarified that there was no intention of using the land marked blue for site cabins and that the land would be restored to provide ecological enhancement upon completion of the development. A Construction Management Plan had not yet been developed as the development had not received planning approval. He advised the Committee that the access road was more than wide enough and that none of the statutory consultees had raised any concerns. Mr Hadwin informed the Committee that the developer had been within his rights to remove trees and shrubs from the land and that none of the items removed had been subject to a Tree Preservation Order. In respect of drainage the Committee was advised that the dyke did not form part of the application site and was not suitable for use as part of the proposed drainage systems. Mr Hadwin confirmed that the developer took part in the ‘Considerate Contractor’ scheme and would abide by the standard planning conditions that controlled the timings of site works.

The Chair allowed the applicant, Mr. Howard Plant, to address the Committee as Mr. Hadwin had not used his full allocation of speaking time. Mr Plant referred to previous planning permission granted for the site and noted that this application had reduced the number of proposed properties to 11. He advised the Committee that he had taken the advice of the Council and the statutory consultees and raised concerns about the length of time it had taken to bring the application to the Committee.

A proposal was moved and seconded to support approval of the application and to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the necessary planning obligations and the conditions outlined in the Officer report.

Resolved:

To support approval of the application and to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the necessary planning obligations and the conditions outlined in the Officer report.