Agenda item

This was an application for the erection of an Extra Care Facility containing 70no. self-contained flats (use Class C2) and associated communal/public facilities and erection of 105no. residential dwelling (Use Class C3) with associated access, landscaping and ancillary works.  This application had been referred to Planning Committee as a major development which required a S106 Agreement.

An update report was tabled which set out information regarding developer contributions, the balancing pond and drainage information, together with an amended plan.

Councillor A McClements, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application which she had been opposing since 2012 and raised concerns regarding the increase of extra care units and residential units, highway safety, the effect on the neighbouring Arleston Village and houses bordering the development, drainage, overdevelopment and the increased traffic causing congestion on busy roads and junctions.  She asked if the 10ft wall was due to be included within the scheme.

Mr G Davey, a member of the public, spoke on behalf of the residents group and raised concerns regarding the amount of public objections received, increase size of the care facility by 40%, viability study, lack of layout and design, the impact of the surrounding Arleston Village, footpath links,  loss of badger sets and trees and drainage.

Mr J Howell, Applicant, informed Members previous applications had not been built as they were unviable.  This had led to an increase of units on the site.  Housing 21 had been secured for the extra care facility.  Drainage and flooding concerns had been noted and additional water would be received into the balancing ponds and the future flow of water would be a reduction on the current flow.   Three plots had been removed in order to protect amenity and dust screens, a wheel wash and other measures would be put in place to protect the neighbouring village.  The site would also include green infrastructure.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the application was within the urban area of Telford and, although located on the green network, public open space would be created near to the extra care facility.  Planning applications had previously been approved on this site in 2012, 2016 and 2018 but had not been built out due to viability issues and they had not secured an extra care provider at that time.  Housing 21 had been secured to run the extra care facility and they would be a signatory to the S106 agreement.  There had been an increase of units on the site in order to make this viable, but the mass of the facility had been reduced.  Density was acceptable and it was less visible within the street scene and would have appropriate landscaping.

During the debate, some Members raised concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, lack of parking spaces, loss of trees and the growth of Japanese knot weed and it was asked for clarification regarding the play facility.  Other Members raised further concerns regarding the extra care facility not being fit for purpose due to lack of staff parking, no off-site parking, no cycle store, no delivery area and no facility for emergency vehicles, drainage, the cumulative effect of increased traffic, the impact on the Grade II listed building and it was asked if the 10ft wall was to be included within the scheme.  It was suggested that this application be deferred for further consideration of the concerns raised.

The Planning Officer confirmed to Members that the parking met current standards with a minimum 2 car spaces and more for larger properties with 240 in total.  With regard to Japanese knot weed, this would be dealt with by an environmental management plan with the Environment Agency and removal was the developer’s responsibility.   The Aboricultural Officer was content with the removal of the trees subject to certain conditions. Parking for 32 vehicles for the extra care facility lay to the south east side of the development with parking for taxis and ambulances within the courtyard.  Visitor parking was within the internal estate roads and secured cycle parking would be provided.   The drainage information had been received late in the day, but this had been presented on the update report and drainage officers were satisfied.  With regard to the 10ft wall at Midfields the Planning Officer stated that there would be reasonable separation distances from the neighbouring properties and, due to the level differences, the area would be naturally landscaped with a smaller wall and some close board fencing.  The Healthy Spaces Officer had agreed the provision of contributions totalling £150,000 towards the enhancement/upgrading of nearby play areas.  Separation distances from Arleston Manor were 41m and it was felt that there would be no detrimental impact.

The Highways Officer informed Members that the parking standards had not been met with regard to staff parking, but the care provider did not feel that this was required.

It was moved and seconded that this application be deferred for further discussions to take place on the concerns raised.

On being put to the vote it was, by a majority:-

RESOLVED – that in respect of Planning Application TWC/2019/0753 that this application be deferred for one cycle in order for further consideration to be given to staff parking, drainage, density, overdevelopment,  highway safety, visibility and Policy C3 of the NPPF with regard to the cumulative effect on the traffic.