|
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING HELD AT
FAIRFORD COMMUNITY CENTRE ON 12TH SEPTEMBER 2011
REGARDING APPLICATION 11/02517/OUT AT PIPS FIELD, FAIRFORD
Present:
Mr Harry Wolton – Planning Lawyer representing Monterrey Ltd (Applicant)
Mr Gregory Gray – Planning consultant
Cllr Suzanne Jones – Chair of Planning
Cllr Mark Wardle – Fairford Town Council and Cotswold District Council
Cllr Caroline Mumford – Deputy Town Mayor
Cllr Joe Cusack – Fairford Town Council
Cllr Trevor Hing– Fairford Town Council
Cllr Martin Harwood – Fairford Town Council
45 members of the public
Apologies: Cllr Winney, Cllr M Jones, Cllr Boulton, Cllr C Roberts, Cllr J Hinton, Cllr Theodoulou
Introduction:
The meeting was to discuss the outline application for the erection of 22 affordable and 22 market dwellings with associated access and estate road, open space and parking at Pip’s Field, Cirencester Road, Fairford. Ref 11/02517/OUT.
Cllr S Jones clarified that Fairford Town Council (FTC) is only a consultee on the application but is keen to know the views of residents. Cotswold District Council (CDC) is the decision making body.
Cllr S Jones gave a brief history of the site: In 2005, planning permission was granted for 15 affordable houses on the southern half of the site. In 2010, the time limit for development was extended to 2013.
It is CDC current policy that up to 50% of new developments should include affordable housing. This is tied up in a legal agreement (Section 106) on granting of permission. Local people with family/work ties should get first priority on affordable houses.
In 2009, an application for 15 market houses was submitted by Monterrey Ltd. This application was refused by CDC.
The Proposals:
Gregory Gray gave an overview of the proposals. The applicant had initial discussions with CDC and FTC before submitting the application.
The application is an outline application only, detail position of houses etc would be agreed/finalised at a later date. There would be a mix of housing types from 1 to 3 bed properties, bungalows and flat units. It is proposed to have a traditional style of design and materials.
There is already permission granted for the access into the site and the existing frontage of the site would be retained. Trees would be retained as per the extant planning permission. Highways has confirmed that it is happy with the increase in number of properties from 15 to 44. Consultation has also been carried out with the Environment Agency (David McKnight) and Thames Water (Development Planning Team 01923 898072).
Questions/Concerns were put to the developer:
• The proximity of the proposed houses to the bungalows on Betterton’s Close – impact on the small south facing gardens that would adjoin the site in terms of loss of light and privacy. The design does not seem to take into account this sensitive edge – residents would prefer bungalows next to their boundaries.
The developer agreed to take this comment on board.
• The proximity to social housing.
The developer advised that the distribution of affordable housing units was not final as the application is outline only.
• If the original permission allowed for 15 units on half of the site, why is there now 44 units on the whole site and not 30?
The original application was not exactly half of the site and the density was low for the original scheme. The larger area results in roads and access points to be used more efficiently. The design represents 30 dwellings per hectare, which is acceptable to CDC.
• Loss of view and value of properties in Betterton’s Close.
These are not valid planning arguments. CDC has to operate according to the rules of Central Government.
• Why were the original 15 affordable houses not built?
The original application was through a Housing Association, which realised the proposals were not financially viable. Market housing is needed to support the affordable element.
• Pip’s Field was only granted permission as it was an Exception Site for affordable housing.
Since then policies have moved on and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has come into effect, where CDC has identified potential land for development. There was some disagreement to the status of the SHLAA study and whether Pip’s Field was still counted as an Exception Site.
• In the CDC Local Plan 5 years ago, Fairford was identified as not being sustainable – what has changed in the meantime?
There was no answer to this question.
• How much will the affordable housing cost to rent or purchase? There is strong support in the town for affordable housing for local people but it is difficult to support potential developments without knowing the figures involved.
This will be up to the Housing Association to set and will be based on current housing rates at the time.
• Is there a guarantee that local people will be given the affordable houses?
Housing is allocated on a points system and local connections, rate very highly. The wording in the S106 agreement needs to be carefully checked. The applicant would support FTC if it wished to petition CDC for the Nomination Rights to allocate the affordable housing element.
• It was suggested that Fairford has become popular for potential development because there are no local Councillors on the CDC Planning committee.
CDC Cllr Wardle advised that Councillors are not allowed to vote on their local area anyway.
• Pedestrian access onto the main road was raised, especially with respect to children.
There will be a pavement inside the site boundary that will link onto the existing pavement network along A417.
• The footpath link from Betterton’s Close is constrained in width by housing either side.
There is no footpath link from Pip’s Field into the existing public footpath from Betterton’s Close.
• With the introduction of the ‘Walker are Welcome’ scheme, possibilities for footpath links should be explored.
FTC will look into this suggestion.
• The road access is onto a dangerous stretch of A417.
The developer has discussed an extension of the 30mph speed limit with Highways. They would not have approved the access if it was considered dangerous.
• Is there a limit to the increase in % population of a town? How will services cope with such an increase in population?
Cllr Wardle has looked into this and been told by CDC that this is a subjective matter and is decided by what is considered sustainable.
• How is the land to be drained? Fairford has a system where the surface and foul water shares the same pipework, this has caused major problems in the past.
The detailed scheme has not yet been developed. Harry Wolton did not have the technical information to hand but will report back.
• If there is an overprovision of affordable housing, people from outside the area will be able to move in.
FTC has just commissioned a Housing Need Survey to find out what the appropriate number of affordable houses for Fairford would be. The results will be reported to the Town council on 20th September.
• Has the option of self build or housing co-operative been looked into?
Not at present but this could be passed to CDC for consideration.
• Concerns with flooding issues were raised.
FTC is very aware of the flooding issues in the town. Developers can be asked to give contributions to the flood alleviation scheme through a S106 agreement. Cllr Wardle assured that as a result of past experience, he will be looking very carefully into all S106 agreements in the future.
• The potential increase in traffic will cause increased problems in parking and traffic flows. Both routes east from the site (A417 London Street and Mill Lane) are single width roads in places.
The required transport assessment has been carried out to the satisfaction of Highways.
The problem is that most A road do not have such narrow single lane widths – has this been taken into account?
• There is no safe route to school.
ECT did once offer to create a footpath along the fields by Mill Lane – this needs to be pursued again.
• Where will the residents of the development get jobs – this is likely to be out of Fairford causing increased traffic?
FTC has made the effort to find out numbers of jobs available locally.
• If there were more bungalows on the development, this could release family houses from those people wanting to downsize.
• The development is along a major entrance into Fairford and must be retained to be as leafy as possible.
The developer agreed and stated that the permitted affordable housing development would not have been approved if it was thought to have damaged the approach to Fairford.
• There needs to be some formal play facilities for the children.
The developers will take this on board.
• What would be the timescale to building if permission was granted?
This would be driven by the economic climate.
• A resident of Fairford for over 30 years was very much in favour of providing affordable homes to allow her family and others in similar situations, to stay and live in the area in which they grew up.
Members of the public were asked to complete the feedback forms and return to the Town Council by 19th September 2011
|
