ADDENDUM REPORT FOR CONSIDERATION BY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AT THEIR SITE VISIT 13 AUGUST 2004

TCP/10558T/P00713/04

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 29 HOUSES AND A BLOCK OF 4 FLATS; FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING PROVISION (AORM), LAND ON CORNER OF HEATHFIELD ROAD AND COLWELL ROAD, FRESHWATER

Report required following list of concerns raised by local Member which relate to the following:

1. Explore possibility of discharging drainage from the proposed development into refurbished private foul sewer, which currently serves Heathfield Close development.

2. Assurance that the new bus shelters are of a design which provide weather protection and are lit at night.

3. Introduction of some mechanism to ensure site construction traffic does not use the vicinity of Heathfield Close during construction works.

4. Assurance that traffic calming methods are introduced both in Heathfield Road and at the junction of Colwell Road with Heathfield Road to reduce speeds of traffic when entering from Colwell Road.

5. 30 mph speed limit be re-sited further to the east to accommodate the repositioned bus stop.

6. Assurances that the substantial treed southern boundary is to be retained in the interests of reducing overlooking.

7. Re-consultation with Education Department to establish their support for the contribution with particular reference to pre-school provision at All Saints Primary School.

The issues will be addressed in order as follows:

1. Further consultation taken place with Southern Water who confirm that whilst they do adopt private sewers their preferred option would always be that such sewers were accessible via public highway or public open space to which vehicular access would be possible at all times. In terms of the current situation the applicants have employed the services of a professional drainage engineer and the solutions being proposed are acceptable to Southern Water and the Environment Agency and therefore the Planning Authority could not insist that this development discharge drainage into a private sewer on the basis that this may be a method to ensure that sewer is formally adopted. Certainly the failure of the applicants to discharge their drainage into the private sewer could not be sited as a reason to refuse the application which is the ultimate test. It is also important to note that Southern Water have stated that “there are no records of flooding from the sewer in the vicinity of this site.” It is emphasized that the existing combined sewer in Colwell Road is being required to accept additional foul drainage from 33 units with a surface water drainage having been designed to be attenuated to ensure flows are set at a same level as that which would be discharged from the virgin site.

The issue of any future adoption of the private sewer which serves Heathfield Close is therefore outside the remit of the current planning application and I can only suggest that residents of the Close could make their own approach to Southern Water who no doubt would consider it on its merits.

2. Reference made to suggested Condition 9 which seeks that “such bus stops shall be constructed in accordance with detail to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.” This condition could be reinforced to make specific reference to the bus stops being suitably weatherproofed and lit.

3. The issue of control of site and construction traffic is a matter which cannot be dealt with under the auspices of planning conditions or legal agreements. Reference is made to Circular 11/95 (The use of conditions in Planning Permissions) which specifically advises that conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the rights of passage over public highways with this being on the grounds of difficulty to enforce. The document advises that it may be possible to encourage drivers to follow preferred routes by posting site notices to that effect or by requiring them to use a particular entrance to or exit from the site. Only where it is absolutely essential to prevent traffic from using particular routes could controls be introduce and this would need to be done under the Road Traffic Regulations Act of 1984 not the planning legislation.

I suggest a letter be sent to the applicant advising they ensure that both construction works and particularly construction traffic is carefully managed to cause minimal disturbance to local residents.

4. Have carried out further consultations with Highway Engineer (Keith Jolliffe) who would support the introduction of traffic management proposal involving prioritized works which would essentially introduce ‘Give Way’ signs which would give preference to one direction of traffic over the other direction of traffic. A system not dissimilar to that being used in Newchurch. This could be covered by way of, either a condition or form part of the Section 106 Agreement.

With regard to re-engineering the junction of Colwell Road and Heathfield Road by introducing a tighter radius the highway engineer considers this would be inappropriate having and effect on the free flow of traffic along Colwell Road. He would therefore not be in a position to support such a proposal.

5. Issue of changes to the 30 mph speed limit would need to be dealt with under separate procedures through the Highway Department.

6. Reference is made to Condition 10, which could be further reinforced to cover the specific retention of the trees along the southern boundary. It is also important to note that the submitted revised plan indicates trees to be retained along the southern boundary. I am therefore satisfied that this issue is and can be covered robustly.

7. Further consultation has taken place with the Education Department who I understand could not justify and therefore could not support the obtaining of an education contribution on the grounds of lack of provision. It is important to appreciate financial contributions need to satisfy key tests to be sustainable. As the Education Department is not indicating that this development will have an impact on school capacity then there is no justified requirement to mitigate a problem which has not been identified. The key tests are similar to those which would apply to condition and therefore any such request for a financial contribution would fail the two most important of those tests being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind and directly related to the proposed development’” In this case I can do no more than accept the advice obtained from the Education Department and without their support it would be unreasonable to apply such a requirement.

Education Officer considers it would be difficult to justify requiring a contribution towards pre school provision at a time when primary school roles are falling away. It is also suggested that as a basic principle education contributions where appropriate should cover the provision of education facilities for children of statutory school age.

Crime and Disorder Implications

I am fully satisfied that had the relevant officer considered a specific comment was necessary, he would have done so. The relevant officer is given the opportunity to comment on all applications and would have raised issues had he identified specific concerns. (Crime Prevention Officer currently on leave).

In general terms the shared surface cul de sac designs automatically provide good quality surveillance an important requirement in the process of planning and crime. Also Plot 12 has been deliberately arranged to overlook the footpath link to the proposed bus stop, which again accords with crime prevention policy. Appropriately located street lighting will also play a role in making these areas safe places to live with the important aim to ensure that residents take ownership of the development as a community.

Changes to Recommendation

Condition 9 to be amended with an additional sentence as follows:

“Such bus stops shall be suitably weather proofed and lit which shall be retained as such thereafter.”

Condition 10 to amended to include the following sentence:

“Any such plan and particulars shall ensure retention of trees along the southern boundary and where appropriate along the western and northern boundaries where they abut Heathfield Road and Colwell Road.”

No change in approval recommendation.

1. Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the provision of 7 on site affordable housing units in line with Council’s policy H14, payment of £9,570 (33 x £290) towards upgrading of local open space and recreational facilities, the funding of total costs or the carrying out of works in relation to the provision of two pelican crossings in Colwell Road, in positions to be agreed and the provision of traffic management proposals involving prioritized works within Heathfield Road, the setting up of a management company to ensure long term maintenance of the drainage infrastructure proposals which serve plots 1 – 7 inclusive and 16 – 33 inclusive.

2. That a letter be sent to developers suggesting they ensure both construction works and particularly construction traffic is carefully managed to cause minimal disturbance to local residents.