Agenda item

To consider application PINS S62A/22/0000002 & UDC UTT/22/1040/PINS.

The Development Manager outlined the process in place for PINS applications. He said that we would ensure that appropriate information was available on the website.

In response to a question, the Council’s Solicitor said that under S62A the Local Planning Authority was a statutory consultee and that its views had the same weight as those of the Highways Authority and Environmental Health and thus was greater than that of a private individual.

The Principal Planning Officer presented an application for the conversion of building and demolition of buildings to allow redevelopment to provide 96 dwellings, swimming pool and changing facilities, associated recreation facilities, access and landscaping. He said that the report had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for determination. He updated members in respect of the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan (SWNP). He said that the Friends School Open space would be deleted from the SWNP and that it was officers’ view that limited to moderate weight could be provided to the Plan due to its advancement in its preparation. He said that it was noted that at the time of assessment no weight had been given to the Plan.

The recommendation made was to request that PINS approve the application, subject to completion of a S106 and conditions as set out in Section 16 of the report.

Planning officers responded to questions from members:

·         It was stated that the application was the equivalent of a full application.

·         Vacant building credit applied to the scheme.

·         There was no affordable housing in the scheme.

·         The weight to be given to the SWNP was further clarified.

·         Some clarification was given in respect of available communal space.

·         Information was sought in respect of protected open spaces, alongside  limited car parking spaces.

·         There was a lack of clarity in respect of car parking spaces against the number of dwellings.

·         Viability assessments were likely to be carried out through PINS.

·         Concerns were expressed about the five entrances and exits to the development and that Highways had yet to comment on the proposal. It was suggested that the Town Council should contact Highways on this matter.

Members discussed:

·         Concerns raised by more than 100 Saffron Walden residents, who generally supported the scheme; factual corrections had been identified, the possible addition of conditions had been raised, the lack of affordable housing had been accepted and the possibility of an independent viability test being undertaken had been raised. The Council’s Solicitor re-iterated that the local planning authority was only a statutory consultee in this instance and that individual concerns should be taken up with PINS, while members could retain their community advocates’ role if they so wished..

·         Possible inadequate parking facilities.

·         The need to request PINS to check floor space measurements.

·         The very tight timeframes available to comment.

·         The fact that if PINS approved the scheme then management of the S106 Agreement fell to the local planning authority; this could include the Town Council taking on responsibilities.

·         When the sports provision should be available and the quality of provision.

·         The need to request a phasing condition with conversion works high up the agenda and the old building to be fixed first.

·         The need for a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that covered delivery times to site, work possibly commencing after school morning sessions start (say from 8.45 on), no off-site parking and names of contact persons. Traffic in Peaslands Road is regulated.

·         Cycle parking arrangements.

·         Bins stores and collection.

·         Management of the public amenity; the Town Council would be interested.

·         The rights of all individuals to advocate to PINS was highlighted again.

·         The possibility of removing Permitted Development rights from houses on the basis of being too enclosed and unattractive and because of small gardens.

The Development Manager summarised the way forward in respect of PINS. He said that the revised officer’s report, with errors corrected and the minutes would be forwarded to PINS. He summarised the headline issues to take forward to PINS as follows:

·         The Neighbourhood Plan had moved on. This would be reviewed by the Policy Team.

·         Public Open Spaces, community facilities and the on-going S106 Agreement.

·         Urban design comments.

·         Landscape.

·         Parking, including parking.

·         Size of gardens.

·         Refuse strategy.

·         The request to check the vacant building credit calculations.

·         A request to have a phasing condition, to include conversion works taking priority.

·         A CMP to cover pre- development engagement with the community, delivery times, no off-site parking and details of contact persons.

·         Permitted Development Rights to be removed if amenity spaces and gardens not of sufficient size.

·         If any pre-development conditions required to be formally  discharged application would be made to UDC and the Council would receive the income.

·         Timing of the delivery of sports facilities.

·          Management and maintenance of community facilities; the Town Council are interested.

·         Trees and hedges provision under the S106 Agreement.

·         The need for renewable energy solutions, including solar panels and water harvesting.

Councillor Emanuel proposed that the Council requests that PINS approve the applications subject to completion of a S106 and conditions as set out in section 16 of the report, together with the headline issues highlighted above.

Councillor Reeve seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED that the Council requests that PINS approve the applications subject to completion of a S106 and conditions as set out in section 16 of the report, together with the headline issues highlighted above.  

The meeting was adjourned between 12.00 pm and 12.15 pm.