Agenda item

Proposal:            (AMENDED PLANS) Residential development comprising 103 no. dwellings with associated on-site infrastructure

Parish:                Denmead

Proposal:           (AMENDED PLANS) Residential development comprising 103 no. dwellings with associated on-site infrastructure

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation of the Head of Development Management of Winchester City Council to grant permission.

Arising from members’ questions it was clarified that:

(a)             the density of the proposal was similar to the density of other residential phases within the major development area;

(b)             the loss of this employment site could be justified because it was not recognised as a strategic employment site by the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership and recent evidence demonstrated that less floor space was required to create the level of jobs envisaged when the Major Development Area was first proposed. In addition the applicant had supported the application with a marketing exercise that proved that there was no demand for the site as employment land;

(c)             other retained areas for employment due to their location were not suitable for residential use and would be retained for employment use;   

(d)             changes had been made to the position of some of the access gates to residential gardens to address security issues;

(e)             although the concentration of some of the affordable housing in the west end of the site was not ideal, the proposals complied with the requirements set out in Section 106 Agreement for the rest of the MDA and this arrangement was acceptable;

(f)              the garden amenity space for units 551 – 554 was considered adequate;

(g)             the change from 3 bed flats over garages to 2 bed units was requested by the officers;

(h)             the materials proposed for rendering was of a high quality and would be the same materials used for other phases in this development; the existing staining problem raised by members was likely to be maintenance issue;

(i)               the officers noted that some members were concerned about the bund and agreed it was important to ensure that the bund was appropriately designed and recommended a condition requiring the approval of details including height, profile, planting details and future maintenance of the feature to ensure that the members’ concerns were adequately addressed;

(j)               the main roads within the development would be offered for adoption by the highway authority: the maintenance of the other roads and parking courts would be private;

(k)             the scheme had been designed to provide safe pedestrian routes across the entire major development area so as to encourage residents not to use vehicles;

(l)               bollards prevented vehicles onto the common; and

The Committee was addressed by Mrs Caine, on behalf of the Old Park Farm Residents Association and Civic Society, who raised the following issues:

(1)             the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed increase in housing would interfere with the free flow of traffic on the single access road  and exacerbate the existing problem of on street parking; and

(2)             the proposed increase in housing, without adequate play areas or a community building, would exacerbate the existing anti social behavioural problems experienced by residents of the area;

In response to questions raised by members of the Committee, Mrs Caine advised that:

(A)         she would have raised the issue of traffic problems associated with the school had this not already been discussed;

(b)          open spaces would not necessarily solve the anti social behaviour problem as: there was need for more formal play areas and the nearest play area was Sickle Way. The lack of nearby play areas had encouraged children to play on the highway which was dangerous and had recently led to a serious incident; and

(c)          the on street parking problems could not be enforced until the roads were adopted as highways maintainable at the public expense;

Parish Councillor Lander-Brinkley, on behalf of Denmead Parish Council addressed the Committee and raised the following concerns:

(i)               although the applicant had agreed to consider the provision of a community building during the pre application stage, such a facility was not included in the  application;

(ii)             the proposed single access road would be unable to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by this proposal; Sickle Way should be kept open;

(iii)            the pedestrian access to the school should be completed and adopted by Hampshire County Council as early as possible

(iv)            a recent article suggested that there was a need for employment units in South Hampshire

In response to a question raised by a Member of the Committee Parish Councillor Lander-Brinkley advised that the proposed strip of land between the bund and nearby houses would attract fly tipping, which would be difficult to keep clean.

The Committee discussed this application in detail together with the views raised by the deputees. Although concern was expressed about the lack of a community facility, the allocation of proposed location of the affordable housing units and the lack of a safe pedestrian route to the school, the majority of the Committee supported the application.

In view of the concerns raised by the Committee concerning the bund, the officers suggested that Condition 9 be amended to prevent the occupation  of houses until the bund had been provided.

It was Agreed that

(A)                  permission be granted for the reasons set out in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions 1 to 8, and 10 to 16  as set out in the report and condition 9 of the report amended to prohibit the occupation of any houses prior to construction of the bund (with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree the wording) and

(B)            in the event of the legal agreement not being completed within 6 months, the application may be refused without further reference to Committee.

(the meeting adjourned at 11.38am and resumed at 11.54 am)