Agenda item

Variation of condition 1 on approved application 20/00571/VARYCO in order to Move Plot Numbers 208 - 222 (15No. Market Sale units) from the Western location on the Masterplan to the Central location occupied by plot numbers 363- 393 and alter the house type mix and move Plot Numbers 363-393 (31No. Affordable units) from the Central location on the Masterplan to the Western location occupied by plot numbers 208-222.

Former Prudhoe Hospital, Prudhoe Hospital Drive, Prudhoe, Northumberland

NE42 5NT

Variation of condition 1 on approved application 20/00571/VARYCO in order to Move Plot Numbers 208 – 222 (15 no Market Sales units) from the Western location on the Masterplan to the Central location occupied by plot numbers 363-393 and alter the house type mix and move Plot Numbers 363-393 (31 no Affordable units) from the Central location on the Masterplan to the Western location occupied by plot numbers 207-222.

Former Prudhoe Hospital, Prudhoe Hospital Drive, Prudhoe, Northumberland NE42 5NT

D Love, Senior Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.  Updates were provided as follows:-

·       Paragraph 1.1 should read “This application is to be determined at Strategic Planning Committee given that is relates to a development that is of Strategic importance.

·       Paragraph 8.1 should read “The proposal represents an appropriate form of development that would not have an adverse impact on the street scene, ecology, or the amenity of nearby residents or users of the site. Those objections which were material had been addressed and the proposal is in accordance with local and national planning policies and is therefore recommended for approval.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, the following information was noted:-

·       There was no change proposed to the size of the affordable housing units or of their tenure.

·       The reason for the change was not definitively known, however it was a possible reaction to market conditions at the current time with the company looking to provide larger homes as more people were working from home and wishing to move to more rural areas.

·       An updated Ecological Impact Assessment had to be provided as part of this application as development was moving closer to the wildlife corridor. The County Ecologist was happy with the proposals subject to the conditions previously attached would be carried forward to this application, and that has been done.  The number of units at 31 was the same as consented, the number of bedrooms was also staying the same and tenure mix was remaining, therefore there would be no further impact on the wildlife corridor or the footpath previously affected.

·       The viability of the scheme had not been reassessed as there was no change in the number of units being built.

·       Whilst the modern national design code brief advocates affordable housing throughout a development in order to create communities,  however the original approval pre-dates this and the scheme has evolved as it has progressed.  It could be considered that the new location of the affordable housing was improved as it now backed onto woodland. The delivery of the affordable housing must be provided as part of the phasing plan and this was probably the extent of the changes to affordable housing that would be acceptable.

·       The plot sizes for the affordable houses remained the same as the existing, they had simply been moved to a different location.  The new site location for the affordable housing was to be made larger to accommodate the increase in house numbers for that site which is why there had been a need to update the ecology assessment.

The question of revisiting the S106 agreement to ascertain if was possible to request additional funds be provided due to viability and any triggers attached to this in response to the larger house types proposed and increased market value since the original application was raised by Members of the Committee.  Advice was provided by the Solicitor that the S106 agreement contained a section 73 clause which allowed the S106 to apply through all variations of the original application and provided details of what had been requested and timescales as part of the S106 agreement.  The Development Services Manager suggested that should Members be minded to approve the application delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair to allow the S106 agreement to be checked to see if there were any clauses which would allow clawback or to revisit the viability as a result of the changes in house types as part of this application.

Councillor Darwin proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application in line with the Officer’s report subject to a review of the Section 106 agreement by the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair and if any changes were required the application would be brought back to Committee if no amendments were required then a decision notice would be issued.  This was seconded by Councillor Hutchinson.

Councillor Stewart expressed disappointment at the lack of consideration and communication with the residents of Humbles Wood in particular but welcomed the other Members input regarding the S106 contribution, a point which had also been raised by residents within his Ward.  He advised that he had had a number of issues with this development stating that the proposed playpark in Humbles Wood was causing concern for residents. He was in regular contact with the developer. at the behest of residents, asking for this application to be withdrawn.  The residents of Humbles Wood would now have 5 properties behind their own properties instead of the one which had previously been agreed.  There would be increased traffic in that area due to the increase in the number of properties and the limited access to footpaths and public transport in that particular area of the development which would impact on the climate.  

Members expressed their support for the proposal that the S106 be looked at and highlighted concerns with the affordable housing all being in one place, however it was suggested that there were no grounds for refusing the application and that social housing providers often preferred to have their properties in one location.

The Solicitor read out the proposal and a vote was recorded as follows: FOR 9; AGAINST 2; ABSTAIN 0. 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report subject to a review of the Section 106 agreement by the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair and if any changes were required the application would be brought back to Committee or if no amendments were required then a decision notice would be issued.