Agenda item

Planning application - MC/23/0855 Land east of High Halstow

Hoo St Werburgh and High Halstow Ward

Hybrid Planning Application for (i) Full Planning Application (Phase 1) for the erection of 270 no. residential units (including affordable housing) and the local centre (up to 1,000 sqm Use Classes E and F) with open space, associated vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access off Christmas Lane, upgrade of existing Public Right of Way, associated services and infrastructure, public realm, landscaping and SuDS. (with associated highway works and (ii) Outline Planning Application (all matters except for access, to be reserved for future determination) for the erection of up to 490no. residential units (including affordable housing), and a primary school (Use Class F1(a)) with new vehicular access points, car and cycle facilities and provision of public open space, sustainable drainage and landscaping works.

Minutes:

Councillor Filmer withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out details of revised conditions 44, 45, 50 with condition 70 to be removed, 25 further letters of objection, a representation from some members of the Independent Group plus some other matters.

The Principal Planner outlined the application in detail for a hybrid Planning Application for (i) Full Planning Application (Phase 1) for the erection of 270 no. residential units (including affordable housing) and the local centre (up to 1,000 sqm Use Classes E and F) with open space, associated vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access off Christmas Lane, upgrade of existing Public Right of Way, associated services and infrastructure, public realm, landscaping and SuDS. (with associated highway works and (ii) Outline Planning Application (all matters except for access, to be reserved for future determination) for the erection of up to 490no. residential units (including affordable housing), and a primary school (Use Class F1(a)) with new vehicular access points, car and cycle facilities and provision of public open space, sustainable drainage and landscaping works.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Pearce addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following issues:

That approving the application now was risky as it would mean dealing with the various problems later, which he considered to be a common link throughout the report.
That Active Travel England had issued a holding objection in relation to key issues which had not been resolved such as walking and cycling routes, connectivity gaps, cycle parking, the travel plan and RS44 Public Right of Way (PROW). Therefore, approving the planning application now did not represent sound planning and that it was an unsustainable development.
That the recreational effects on the habitat at Northwood Hill Nature Reserve would be significant without mitigation and that the RSPB objected, in principle, because the costs for fencing had not been agreed or secured.
That KCC Biodiversity would require further information before determination including an agreed mitigation strategy with Natural England and the RSPB.
That the report referred to the Fisherswood ancient woodland, which was an irreplaceable habitat, and that the report was unclear about the size/extent of the buffer between this stage and reserved matters stage of the application.
That if the application and recommendations were sustainable it would not be necessary to rely heavily on conditions, future plans, reserved matters and a legal agreement at this stage.
That the Committee either refuse the application or at least defer the application to enable the contradictions and critical matters to be resolved and for the mitigations to be agreed and secured.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Sands addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following issues:

That High Halstow was one of the most elevated settlements on the Hoo Peninsula standing between the River Medway and River Thames.
That High Halstow was a rural village with a long history over many centuries.
That this was not a small addition to the village but rather would permanently alter the character of High Halstow and accelerate the urbanisation of rural areas.
That there was no thought for the residents who already lived there and the infrastructure which was already under strain.
That given the issues surrounding children and families in temporary accommodation and the prices these houses were being marketed for, how many local families would be helped, therefore, this development would not answer the Medway’s housing needs.
That many residents saw this application as an attempt to pre-empt the Local Plan and if approved would change the character of the village forever.
That the Committee should be refuse or at least defer the application.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Crozer addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following issues:

That this application had been sitting with the Planning Department for three years, however, the 107 page report which had been published a few days ago represented a rush to the finish line which would double the size of the village. This was unfair to the community and a risk to the Committee and was an attempt to bypass the public examination of the emerging Local Plan.
That the Committee was effectively being asked to decide the soundness of Policy SA9 before the Independent Inspectors had even looked at it.
That approving the application now would be pre-empting the new Local Plan.
That the report suggested that the £6.8M contribution for Four Elms Hill junction works was enough, however, previous HIF data suggested that over £100M was required for the Hoo Peninsula mitigations.
That condition 72 allowed for 350 homes to be occupied before the strategic highway mitigation was even operational and he questioned where was the evidence that Four Elms Hill could handle these additional homes.
That regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations could not be met at this stage and that the delivery timeline contradicted the applicant’s own transport assessment.
There were five specific questions, as summarised in the Chief Planning Officer’s responses below.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Spalding addressed the Committee as an adjoining Ward Councillor and outlined the following issues:

That he and other Members had attended a presentation on this application three weeks ago and that the 107 page officer report, published 8 days ago, setting out the various conditions and S106 elements, combined with the 454 documents on the Planning Portal, meant it was not possible to make proper representations in the time period (5 working days), which he considered to be a procedural flaw and he questioned whether the Committee members had read all of the report and supporting documents.
That the planning history in the development area indicated that all appeals had been dismissed, yet the only planning history provided in this report related to environmental information reports. Therefore, if an officer’s report failed to provide sufficient information any decision could be unlawful.
That the new Local Plan would require 30% social housing on this type of application, yet, this application only provided 25%, and he commented on the impact that could have on children in temporary accommodation.
That he represented the adjoining ward which included the parish of St. Mary Hoo. This area would bear the brunt of the various knock-on effects of the development, however, he stated that the Parish Council had not been consulted, which he considered to be a procedural flaw.
That there was no mention of Fenn Corner roundabout or other roads/developments in the north of the peninsula in the report.
That there were a number of grounds for the Committee to defer the application on, including the receipt of detailed Ward Councillor representations, a site visit and for the application to consider additional social housing which could assist with taking children out of temporary accommodation.

The Chief Planning Officer responded to the five questions raised by the Ward Councillor. The £24M S106 contributions across 13 heads of terms had been assessed against regulation 122 of the CIL regulations and compliance statements had produced for each of those. The £6.8M sum for Four Elms Hill would not cover all of the improvements, rather it was a proportionate contribution, based on the allocations in the Local Plan. In relation to the issue regarding 250 units in seven years, compared to 320 units in five years, he referred to the tilted balance and factors such as a 5 year housing land supply and the housing deliver test (75%), in both cases the Concill was under those targets (2.9 years and 72%), which placed an emphasis on the delivery of homes, taking into account information in the Local Plan. It was also now likely with Redrow being part of the Barrett Group, that the site would be built out by several developers thus increasing delivery.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that in relation to the question of pre-empting the Local Plan examination period, the Council had taken KC advice from two Barristers and he referred to speculative applications and the issues surrounding defending any appeals. This application had been with the Council for over two years and the applicants had not agreed a further extension meaning they could appeal against non-determination, and the Council still needed to determine applications and deliver homes, despite the proximity of the Local Plan examination stage. He also referred to the five year housing land supply and the need to deliver the infrastructure to accelerate this delivery. With regards to the delivery of 350 homes and the need for the improvements to Four Elms Hill (and other roundabouts in the area), the delivery of housing would provide the funding to make those improvements. The timescales for producing the officer report had complied with the legal requirement, the application had been with the Council for over two years, therefore, a wide range of comments had been received and they had been considered and reflected by officers.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the officer presentation, the report, the supplementary advice sheet and the Ward Councillors’ comments.

In response to issues raised around drainage, flood risk assessments and upgrades to be undertaken by Southern Water, the Principal Planner referred to Southern Water’s representations and that there were conditions in the report linked to the issue of insufficient foul capacity and the requirement to ensure that adequate infrastructure would be in place prior to properties being occupied. He further advised that an environmental impact assessment had been submitted with application, the Council had appointed an Independent Consultant to review this and associated documents and were found to be robust and resilient. With regards to drainage conditions, these would be agreed with Southern Water.

In response to concerns about the type of development with regards to infrastructure, the land use and proposed housing mix, including 44% of houses with four or more bedrooms, the Chief Planning Officer advised the Committee that the emerging Local Plan was concerned with delivering housing needs across Medway, therefore, a mix of housing was required and the proposed mix was in keeping with a rural setting, with 25% affordable housing for this part of Medway. He reminded the Committee that the housing needs for Medway over the Local Plan period was 24,000 homes, whilst recognising the impact this would have on local areas, and that this site was identified in the emerging Local Plan for development. The Service Manager – Planning Development confirmed that 4,841 new properties of four or more bedroom houses, which represented 31% of owner occupied houses, were included in the Local Plan, therefore, this was considered appropriate for this particular site.

In response to issues raised around school provision including primary and secondary, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the Council’s Education Team had looked at the allocation in the Local Plan and that the existing 1FE primary school would be replaced by a new 2FE primary school. This would require the use of all of the developer contributions for Education to construct a whole new primary school, whilst the receipt of the sale of the former school site would be used for secondary school provision. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that the existing primary school was owned by an Academy, and that there was agreement between the Education Team and the Academy to use the money generated from the sale of the site for secondary provision.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A. The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure the following:

i) £174,504.80 to improve equipment and facilities at Medway Mobile Libraries and/or the local history library at Medway Archives Centre and/or libraries in the vicinity.

ii) £191,398.40 towards the provision of enhancements of community facilities within High Halstow to benefit the local community and residents of the development including but not limited to upgrades to the existing cricket pavilion, toilet block and village hall.

iii) £256,492.40 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

iv) £81,806.40 to support youth development and youth provision within the local vicinity.

v) £281,055.60 towards improved civic space and gateways to High Halstow (including but not limited to greening, bollards, seating, lighting, paving, wayfinding and signage).

vi) £180,758.40 towards the improvement and promotion of waste and recycling services serving the development.

vii) £254,318.80 towards enhancements to existing and new sports and leisure provision within High Halstow including but not limited to the purchase of additional land to improve existing sports provision within the village, upgrades to the existing cricket pavilion, toilets and village hall and upgrades to existing and new football pitches at High Halstow playing field and Deangate Sports Ground.

viii) £57,000 towards improvements to signage/information and any relevant surface improvements, to the nearby public rights of way. Including new surfacing, seating, lighting, signage and associated legal costs where applicable.

ix) £2,042,211.20 towards the creation of additional capacity in social care, primary care and community care required as a result of the increase in housing and resulting patient registration.

· Social Care - £218,211.20

· Health Primary Care - £1,520,000

· Health Community Care - £304,000

x) £11,465,701.11 towards delivering a Two Form Entry Primary School, including land transfer and measures to ensure vehicular and pedestrian access up to the site boundary with the school along with the necessary services.

xi) £6,787,120.00 towards strategic highway mitigation including but not limited to improvements to Four Elms, Sans Pareil, Main Road, Ropers Lane roundabouts and a wider sustainable transport package.

xii) £859,560.00 towards improvements to improving existing open space provision and equipment within High Halstow including but limited to the existing MUGA, Skate Park, football pitches, cricket pavilion, village hall and or towards the purchase of additional land to improve existing sports provision within the village.

xiii) £1,278,099.60 towards a Strategic Environmental Mitigation Strategy (SEMS) to would include the Northward Hill SSSI Mitigation and other identified sites.

xiv) 25% of all housing to be provided as affordable housing.

xv) No development shall take place until a full implementation and phasing plan for the off?site highway works proposed on drawings 271568-00-047-05 Rev A, 271568-00-047-05 Rev A, 271568-00-047-06 Rev A, 271568-00-047-07 Rev A , 271568-00-047-08 Rev A , 271568-00-047-09 Rev A 271568-00-047-09 Rev A, 271568-00-047-10 Rev A, 271568-00-047-10 Rev A and 271568-00-047-12 Rev A have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The approved plan shall include drawings, delivery sequencing linked to phased occupations, and a timetable for completion. The works shall thereafter be delivered in accordance with the approved details and phasing plan.

xvi) No development above ground floor slab level within Phase 1 shall commence until a PRoW RS44 Implementation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:

(a) final alignment and detail design (surfacing, lighting, drainage, accessibility features);

(b) consents and agreements (including any third-party land arrangements);

(d) arrangements for inspection and maintenance

responsibilities.

Financial contributions equate to £23,910,026.71 (£31,461.00 per dwelling) plus the non-financial elements including 25% affordable homes and on-site facilities such as open space and the MUGA within the school.

B. Conditions 1 to 72 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report with amendments to conditions 44, 45, 50 and 70 as follows:

Condition 44:

Prior to the occupation of the 271^st dwelling a Local Centre Delivery Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Strategy shall include:

A timeline for the construction and leasing of the Local Centre floorspace, demonstrating alignment with the rate of residential completions:

The Strategy shall demonstrate compliance with emerging Local Plan Policy DM12 and SA9 criteria 7. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Strategy.

Reason: To secure the timely and effective delivery of everyday retail and

community facilities in parallel with housing occupation, ensuring the

development functions as a sustainable neighbourhood and residents are not

forced to travel for basic services, consistent with sustainability objectives and

paragraph 20 of the NPPF.

Condition 45:

Pursuant to condition 44 no dwelling within the Reserved Matters construction phase(s) shall be occupied until the commercial floorspace within the approved Local Centre has been:

Fully constructed in accordance with the timetable;
Fitted out to a specification suitable for immediate occupation; and
Actively marketed for appropriate retail and community use.

Evidence demonstrating completion and readiness for occupation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwelling within the Reserved Matters construction phase(s).

Reason: To guarantee that essential everyday services are available to residents as the community builds out, thereby reducing the need to travel, supporting the retail hierarchy, and ensuring the Local Centre fulfils its intended role within the masterplan and paragraph 20 of the NPPF.

Condition 50:

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied or brought into use until a detailed Travel Plan for that phase (Residential Travel Plan and/or School Travel Plan, as applicable) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan(s) shall be based on the principles, objectives and framework measures set out within the submitted Framework Travel Plan, and shall include, but not be limited to:

Updated baseline information, travel patterns and mode share targets appropriate to the relevant phase;
SMART targets for achieving a reduction in single occupancy car journeys and an increase in sustainable travel modes;
Full details of the Travel Plan Coordinator, including responsibilities, resourcing and management arrangements;
A programme of measures for residents, staff, pupils and visitors to promote and encourage walking, cycling, public transport and other sustainable travel options;
A programme of marketing and communication, including travel packs and information for new residents, staff and parents;
Monitoring arrangements, including TRICS compliant surveys, timescales, performance indicators and reporting mechanisms to the Local Planning Authority;
Review procedures, triggers and remedial action for those measures which are within the applicants control;
Implementation timetable, linked to the phased occupation of the development.

The Travel Plan(s) shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details from first occupation of each phase, and all measures, targets and monitoring shall be maintained and reviewed for a minimum period of five years from first occupation of that phase, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that sustainable travel is promoted and that the development minimises reliance on the private car, in the interests of highway efficiency, climate objectives and sustainable development.

Condition 70:

Condition 70 to be removed as PRoW improvements and pedestrian connections for off-site highways works are to be covered and secured in the S106 agreement.

Councillor Filmer returned to the meeting.

Supporting documents: