Application to vary conditions 4 (Approved Plans), 16 (Temporary Access) and 17 (Highway Improvement Works) of planning approval 19/00335/OL, to provide a revised site access (Major Development) at land to the South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland.
(Planning Manager – Development Management)
The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted to vary Condition 4 (Approved Plans), Condition 16 (Temporary Access) and Condition 17 (Highway Improvement Works) of Planning Approval 19/00335/OL. These changes would provide a revised site access for a Major Development on land to the South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland. The Application had been referred to Committee by Ward Member, Councillor H Liggett, who had raised concerns about it.
Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions and an appropriate ‘Section 106’ Agreement; or an agreement reached between the Council as Planning Authority with a developer to carry out specific work to help offset the impact of new developments on local people. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.
Officers had concluded that because the proposed variations would only involve minor changes. It would be possible to deal with them through a ‘Section 73 Application’ under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to make minor amendments to approved plans.
Members heard that the Application proposed to change access to the site. However, the proposed variations would have some impact on the long term health of one of the trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Officers contended that this this would still be preferable to implementing the original access arrangements, as these would have a greater impact on the trees covered by the TPO than the suggested new access arrangements.
Officers felt that the proposed change to the access arrangements would not have an adverse impact on either the local street scene, or on the nearby Conservation Area. They recommended that as a condition for approval an appropriate Section 106 agreement should be put in place, to ensure that the financial contributions to education and affordable housing, which had been unilaterally offered by the developer, would now be carried over to this new permission.
Before the Committee discussed the Application it heard from Councillor C Cupit as local ward Member and Councillor H Liggett as local ward Member. After Councillor H Liggett had spoken she then left the meeting and took no part in the Committee’s consideration and determination of the Application. Committee also heard from R Southey, K Bush and P Webster who objected to the Application. No one spoke in support of the Application.
Committee considered the Application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues. It considered the Principle of Development and noted how outline planning permission had been granted on appeal, to construct up to 90 dwellings on the site. It took into account the implications for nearby heritage assets and the location of the proposed site access in relation to the Hallfieldgate Gate Conservation Area. It considered the impact on the local street scene, including those trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, the necessity to remove a section of hedgerow and the effect on neighbouring properties.
Members discussed the Application.As part of this, they considered the possible implications for road safety of the proposed change. Members were informed that the Highway Authority had been consulted about the Application and that it had raised no road safety, traffic management or other objections.
Committee Members reflected on the concerns raised about how the changed access arrangements might make it more difficult for vehicles to safely enter and exit the site. They also discussed the volume of traffic likely to use the road network at and around the site. They noted the concerns raised that a more up to date assessment of this would be required.
Members discussed the impact on those trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order and the possible damage to them if the access granted under either the original permission or the proposed new access were put in place. They also discussed the impact on the street scene and especially the need to remove a section of hedgerow, so that the new access to the site could be created.
During the discussion, some Members felt that the revisions to access arrangements, the traffic management implications, the possible damage to trees and to the street scene, would amount to a major change to the existing Planning Permission. In this context, they queried whether the changes ought to have been covered by a new outline planning application.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor M Foster and Councillor W Armitage moved and seconded a Motion to reject the Application, contrary to officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
That Application 21/01376OL be refused, contrary to officer recommendations.
That the proposed variations to conditions would cumulatively result in a major change to the agreed Planning Approval (19/00335/OL), especially in terms of road safety, traffic management, protected trees and the overall character of the area.]