Proposal: Erection of 722no. dwellings & public open space (Reserved Matters Application pursuant to Outline Approval 09/0413) The Principal Planning Officer submitted the report on the application which had been subject of a site visit by the Committee on 18 January 2023. Slides were displayed on screen showing: location plan; and, photographs of the site, an explanation of which was provided for the benefit of Members. The Principal Planning Officer recommended: 1) That Authority to Issue be given to the Corporate Director of Economic Development to issue approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure: a) a financial contribution of £85,000 towards the provision of a children's play area on site; b) a financial contribution of £35,000 towards the provision of a fitness trail on site; c) a financial contribution of £150,000 towards the provision of a multi-use games area (MUGA) on site; d) a financial contribution of £446,787 towards the provision of grass and/or artificial sports pitches and associated changing facilities which are accessible to residents of the development; over and above the existing S106 requirements as outlined in paragraph 3.9 of the report; and, ensure the provision of a satisfactory nutrient neutral development to mitigate the impact of phosphates pollution from this development on the River Eden SAC. 2) That if the S106 not be completed or a satisfactory nutrient neutrality scheme not be provided, delegated authority be given to the Corporate Director of Economic Development to refuse the application. Mr Eales (Objector on his own behalf and on behalf of Mr Veale and Ms Wiggins) objected to the application in the following terms: Condition 3 of Outline Approval (09/0413) required all Reserved Matters be based on the design and layout principles set out within the approved Parameter Plans (Plan 3 related to residential density); Parameter Plan 3 created two housing density areas within the site – Low To Medium Density (20 – 45 dwellings/ha) and Higher Density Areas (of over 45 dwellings); approved application 16/0200 determined the phasing plan and densities of the various areas; the current application was supported by plans illustrating densities within the site wherein some areas had been combined thus masking significant variations with the agreed levels, and deviation from the densities agreed in Parameter Plan 3; the proposals in relation to the scale, design and materials in the portion of the site adjacent to Cloverfield were not in accordance with Local Plan policy SP 6 – securing good design, principle 1, as the new development would not be in keeping with the existing dwellings; the access proposals in the current application were not in line with Parameter Plan 1 (Approval 09/0413) as the number of access points had been reduced from 5 to 3, and locations had been amended, the potential impact on the residents of Grange Drive which would be used by construction traffic for a considerable period of time was not in compliance with principle 7 of policy SP 6. Mr Eales displayed slides on screen showing: plan of the applications site; Parameter 3 Plan; Phasing Plan, Phase 2 (Application 16/0220); comparison of density figures, proposed development adjacent to Amberwood / Cloverfield; Parameter Plan. Mr Challis (Objector on his own behalf and on behalf of Mr Graham) objected to the application in the following terms: the Outline Approval 09/0413 had stipulated 5 access / egress points on to the development, the current application had reduced the number to 3; the initially approved 5 would be more appropriate for the scale of the development and should be reinstated; the use of Grange Drive as the main access for construction traffic was not compatible with Local Plan policy SP 6 as it would have an impact on residential amenity for a prolonged period of time, and was not in accord with principle 6 of the policy which encouraged streets to function as social spaces; Grange Drive did not meet the street typologies of the Design and Access Statement, thus the construction traffic proposal and was not compliant with Local Plan policy IP 2 Transport and Development principle 6 which required HGV traffic be deterred from using residential streets; the Speckled Wood development, which was under the ownership of the applicant utilised discreet accesses for construction traffic through the implementation of various phases of development, residents of Amberfield and Cloverfield should be afforded the same respect and privacy and plans should be developed to provide access routes across the proposed development with discreet access to each character area; prior to any further development the existing speed humps on Grange Drive should be replaced by the raised block traffic calming as per previously approved plans to reduce noise nuisance; failure to address the foregoing matters would breach both planning policy and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ms Graham (Applicant) responded in the following terms: the current application sought to deliver the final phases of a district centre development which had been approved a decade ago and encompassed a number of complex matters; Persimmon took ownership of the site three years ago and had generated a scheme that comprised a mixture of house types and materials used providing a range of options within a sustainable development; the Cloverfield development was unique in that the affordable housing provision it was required to provide had been delivered off site, such a delivery was no longer supported by planning policy; the current proposals were largely in line with the Outline approval, there were variances in density but those differences were not as extreme as the initial approval allowed for i.e. the delivery of four storey apartment blocks which were no longer supported by Council policy; the green space to be provided by the Section 106 would be designed, adopted and maintained by the Council; no Statutory Consultee had objected to the proposal. Ms Graham confirmed that it was the intention when commencing the phase one construction to use Grange Drive as the construction access route. However, the applicant was agreeable to altering that to Peter Lane and for that detail to be included in the Construction Management Plan so that they may be held accountable on the matter. The Committee then gave consideration to the application. In response to Members' questions Officers confirmed: - A Reserved Matters application should relate to the granted Outline permission; - Outline Approval 09/0413 (Parameter Plan 3) set the following density ranges – low to medium = 20 – 45 dwellings/ha – high = 46+ dwellings, the proximity of the ranges meant that the density provided in some adjacent areas were very close, but still in line with the Parameter Plan; - Whilst no grass verge was provided, Grange Drive still met the requirements in terms of road width to be the means of access for construction traffic; - the area where the existing Cloverfield development abutted the application site with different density levels encompassed a section which contained three dwellings, as such the variance was not considered to be significant; - the traffic calming measures to be implemented on Grange Drive would be determined via Section 38 agreement; - the formula used to calculate the Section 106 contribution in respect of school places was based on the per pupil amount agreed as part of the 2010 approval, but was index linked; - planning obligations from other developments would be required to realise sufficient funding to deliver a school. Members and Officers discussed in detail: the proposals in relation to the vehicular access; construction traffic access; the closing up at one end of Peter Lane; and the relationship and impact of the Carlisle Southern Link Road on the development. A Member considered that conditions should be added requiring construction traffic access be made via Peter Lane as soon as possible. A Member moved the Officer’s recommendation. The Chair considered that exhaustive debate had taken place on the application yet Members remained unclear on the access and egress and the impact of the Carlisle Southern Link Road. On that basis he proposed the determination of the application be deferred. The Committee indicated its assent.
-NIL-
Conservative – Mrs Bowman, Christian, Collier, Mrs Finlayson, Meller, Morton (Chair), Md Ellis-Williams (sub), McKerrell (sub), Mrs Mitchell (sub)
Labour – Alcroft, Mrs Glendinning, Southward, Wills, Birks (sub), Brown (sub), Whalen (sub)
Independent - Tinnion (Vice Chair) Independent and Liberal Democrat - Bomford, Allison (sub)
Enquiries, requests for reports, background papers etc to: democraticservices@carlisle.gov.uk To register a Right to Speak at the Committee contact: DCRTS@carlisle.gov.uk
Officers: Corporate Director of Governance and Regulatory Services Corporate Director of Economic Development Head of Development Management
Principal Planning Officer
Planning Officer (x3)