Agenda item

Site Plan

Bromsgrove District Council Hybrid application 16/0263 comprising:

1) Outline Application (with all matters reserved with the exception of vehicular points of access and principle routes within the site) for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of : Up to 2,560 dwellings (Class C3); Local centre including retail floorspace up to 900 sq metres (Classes A1, A2, A3) health and community facilities of up to 900 sq metres (Class D1) ; A 3FE first school (Class D1) (up to 2.8Ha site area) including associated playing area and parking and all associated enabling and ancillary works.

2) Detailed application for the creation of a means of access off Birchfield Road, Cur Lane, Foxlydiate Lane and emergency, pedestrian and cycle access to Pumphouse Lane. The creation of a primary access road, including associated cut and fill works and other associated earthworks, landscaping, lighting, drainage and utilities, crossings and surface water attenuation/drainage measures

Officers presented the report and explained that the application site fell within the Bromsgrove District Council (”BDC”) boundary, and that ultimately this was a matter that would be decided by the Bromsgrove District Council Planning Committee. Redditch Borough Council had been consulted because of the close proximity of the site to the Bromsgrove/Redditch boundary.

Officers had carried out a detailed appraisal of the application and Members were being asked to consider and endorse the officer response set out on pages 29 to 33 of the main agenda.

It was noted that the application was a hybrid application seeking detailed permission for the items listed in paragraph 2 above relating to access points and creation of  a primary access road, and outline permission  for the creation of up to 2560 dwellings, and the associated facilities, including a first school (as set out in paragraph 1 above).

From a policy point of view, the site was included in the Bromsgrove District Council Plan to meet some of the developments requirements of Redditch Borough Council. The background to this was that there had been insufficient capacity within Redditch for the dwellings that the authority was required to supply.  Accordingly, under the duty to co-operate in the Localism Act, the two councils had worked together to identify two areas on the border of Redditch and Bromsgrove that could be brought forward to accommodate the shortfall.  Those arrangements had subsequently been formalised through the local plan making process and had resulted in the identification of two areas for residential development at Foxlydiate and Brockhill.

Members were referred to the relevant policy documents, namely the Bromsgrove District Council Cross Boundary Policy in the Bromsgrove District Plan (Adopted 2017) (Policy RCBD1) and the Redditch Borough Council Cross Boundary Policy which was included as an appendix to the Redditch Local Plan No 4 ( BORLP4) (Adopted January 2017).

Officers summarised the matters referred to in the officer response and referred Members to paragraph 5.2 regarding provision of affordable housing.  It was thought that there had been an error in the Affordable Housing Delivery Pan as submitted by the developer, and the officer response sought to highlight that housing at the site was intended to meet Redditch’s affordable housing needs.

With regard to transport, it was noted that the officer response requested the provision of a full transport assessment (paragraph 6.1).  With regard to walking and cycling, it was noted that the developer had submitted a Walking and Cycling Strategy which covered integration of the site into existing walking and cycling routes.

With regard to paragraph 9, officers referred Members to the comments supporting the need for high quality design in order to ensure that the development provided a good link between the existing urban area of Redditch and the surrounding countryside.

Officers answered questions from Members on a number of issues and in doing so confirmed that:-

·         The application complied with the policy requirement as to the provision of schooling, the policy stating that the development should provide a first school.

·         The policy did not cover any requirements as to middle or high school places for children that resided on the development; it would be for Worcestershire County Council as the local education authority to take the lead on this aspect.  It was expected that the education authority would be able to assess the demand for places for older children and how this could be integrated into the existing schools serving the area. Officers anticipated that further detail on this aspect would be included in the full planning application.

·         With regard to buses serving the development, the submitted transport assessment contained proposals for a bus route, and it was expected that the cost of this would be funded by the development in the sum of £185K per year.  This would be in addition to other proposed section 106 contributions.

·         Work by Worcestershire Highways to identify where improvements would be made to the local transport network was already underway, with plans being formulated for where monies would be spent.  The works would include improvements to the surrounding area and would represent a benefit for the Redditch area.

·         It was intended that the bus route for the development would have bus stops along the central spine road, and that the walking routes would be designed to facilitate easy access to the spine road from the residential areas.

·         The central spine road would have a 20 mph design standard, and as such it was not planned that lay-bys for buses to stop at would be necessary.

·         Highways officers had considered the possibility of the bus route being extended to link to areas of development at Webheath but it was premature to progress any planning for this as those schemes had yet to come forward.

·         It was intended that Curr Lane would remain open but the current route would be reconfigured to discourage use of the lane as a rat run.

·         With regard to potential problems with school parking, it was not intended that the first school would have dedicated drop off faculties, although there would be parking at the local centre nearby.  The proposed design of the development with walking routes linking to the school located at the centre of the site had been aimed at negating the use of cars to transport children to school.

In the course of the debate Member’s commented that they regarded the issue of provision of affordable housing for Redditch as very important, and that they wanted to highlight the officer comments at paragraph 5.2 on page 31 of the main agenda.

Further, Members identified two additional aspects in relation to which they wished their comments to be added to the officer response.

Firstly, there was some concern expressed that with other developments historically there had been considerable delay in securing 106 payments.  Members wished to guard against the possibility of delay in the provision of necessary improvements to local infrastructure and services, as this could have a negative impact both on existing residents and the occupants of the new development.  Officers advised that section 106 payments would be covered by a legal agreement to be entered into between Bromsgrove District Council and the developer, and the issue of timing of payments would be governed by the use of “trigger points”.  In particular, Members highlighted the need to ensure that any education contributions were made at the appropriate time to ensure that there was acceptable school provision in place for new residents.

Secondly, Members raised the issue of design standards and the need to ensure that the new dwellings were sustainable.  In particular they wished to emphasise the importance of future use of electric vehicles, and that the developer should be required to make provision in the design of the dwellings for the installation of electric vehicle charging points.  Officers commented that both Bromsgrove and Redditch had adopted policies on provision of electric charging points, and that it was anticipated that further detail on this element would come through in the detailed application.

RESOLVED that:-

(i)            No objection be raised to the planning application and amendments proposed;

(ii)          The comments under the heading Officer appraisal (Appendix 1 at pages 29 to 33 of the main agenda) be endorsed;

(iii)         Appendix 1 be amended by officers to add further comments from Members with regard to :-

a.    Emphasising the issue around affordable housing for Redditch as referred to at para 5.2 on page 31;

b.    Raising the need for defined trigger points to be used in the section 106 agreements to ensure that contributions are made in a timely manner, especially with regard to education contributions; and

c.    Emphasising the need for the design of the development to accommodate energy neutral approaches and provision of electric vehicle charging points.