The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:
a. The application is for the development of 173 dwellings together with provision of public open space, play areas and landscaping; cycle parking and car parking provision together with related infrastructure works.
b. The site is bound to the south by Airport Road, to the north by residential gardens and a Brook flows through the site.
c. There were 8 representations received from the public and objections from 2 of the statutory consultees that remain outstanding.
d. The following matters were highlighted when committee were shown the plans and images of the development and the site.
e. The Environment Agency flood risk objection had arisen because of modelling used by the applicant. The report and amendment sheet outlined the issues in detail but officers deem that the objection would be overcome on production of a further document explaining the modelling used by the application and final agreement on the necessary mitigation across the development.
f. Highway objection related to the width of the shared cycle & pedestrian footpath that proposes to be only 3.5mtr therefore fails to meet the current cycling infrastructure plan.
g. Officers recommended approval together with conditions and delegated authority as outlined in the amendment sheet.
Questions & Answers
h. Officers confirmed that the cycle path was intend for use by cyclist to pass in both direction; that it was proportioned to allow 1.5mtr for cycleway and 2mtr for pedestrians; members asked if the path could extend out into the highway but that was not possible; that any adjustment to the path would impact the amenity of the development particularly the frontage of the property.
i. A further explanation was provided on the challenges of finding a balance between the development and the hard boundary being Airport Road and the Brook. Negotiations with the developers had considered all aspects. The final design is seen to provide the best frontage option for those units bordering the highway. The proposed width of the cycle path supported this and is an issue that committee must be agree before residents occupy and the developer commences construction.
j. The Brook that formed a natural boundary to the site did not appear to be of a width and depth to indicate the possibility of posing a severe flood risk. Members sought to know the level of risk that existed.
k. The flood risk assessment (FRA) assesses the potential for 1/100 year event. The EA is looking to the applicant to present the working outs for the FRA modelling used. Officers viewed that as a technical detail that was not insurmountable therefore confident of a resolution under delegated authority.
l. Details on council tenants tenure in the area were requested but Officers did not normal consider this statistic in the work they undertake, as mixed and balanced communities assessments normally focussed on house types. They were able to confirm that the scheme would deliver at least 30% affordable housing, potentially more, and would support a mixed and balanced community.
m. Members were in favour of the scheme with reservation about the cycle path width but took the view that the development had higher portion of positive aspects including the play areas, natural surroundings and a brook.
n. It was suggested that the issue of the key walking and cycling route should be kept in view and looked to committee to consider conditions to overcome the cycle path issue.
o. Cllr M Davies, seconded by Cllr Mead, proposed that committee agree officer recommendation with a condition that Officers agree with the developer a proposal to widen the dual pathway to 5 metres.
p. When put to the vote
q. Resolved (9 for: 0 against: 0 abstention) that the application be granted as set out in the Officer recommendation with an additional condition for Officers to agree with the developer a proposal to extend the walkway/pathway to 5 metres.