Officers will give an update on the development of Franklyn Fields
Minutes:
Grant Butterworth (Head of Planning) gave an update on the Franklyn Fields site.
He referred to the previous action log, which had noted that an application for the site was expected. It was confirmed that since the previous meeting an application had been received and that this would be determined in due course by the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee.
The application was currently subject to a period of consultation. The requirements on the Council to advertise the application were clarified. It was reported that site notices had been displayed, advertisements had been published and over 60 individual letters had been sent to residents neighbouring the site. Councillors also reported on their efforts to ensure that residents were aware of the proposals and understood the process of the consultation prior to the Committee’s consideration of the application.
In this regard the active consideration of consultee submissions was discussed and it was noted that comments made at the previous meeting and other representations concerning the use of the land made prior to the application had also been noted.
In response to a question relating to the impact of petitions, it was reported that although petitions were always considered, individual representations that addresses specific objections would have greater effect.
Although the statutory period for receiving representations had closed in January, it was confirmed that the City Council’s policy was to consider all representations received prior to the Committee meeting. It was expected that due to the significant number of representations already received, and the complexities of those representations, the application would not be at a stage for the Committee’s determination for several months.
It was reported that this timeframe would be extended further should any significant revised plans be submitted by the applicant, it being noted that applicants often submitted revisions to plans to try to satisfy objections before the Committee’s determination. In response to a question it was confirmed that if revised plans significantly altered a proposal, a further consultation exercise would be required.
In terms of the Committee meeting, it was reported that the Council allowed public speaking and that objectors were allowed a total of 5 minutes to express their views to members.
Residents raised questions concerning the education provision for the site, the traffic impact of the proposal and access to the site, together with air quality concerns. It was noted that technical responses would be provided. It was noted that the highway and education departments were heavily involved in the consultation process and would make detailed responses.
Having regard to the comments specifically concerning the traffic impact, it was clarified that the applicants would produce technical details of the highway impacts and traffic levels expected from any development of the site, such as at peak traffic times.
This technical detail would be assessed by the Council’s highways officers who would also report their findings to the Committee prior to the application being determined.
In respect of the housing types and style of design, it was reported that the Council had no powers to request certain styles or designs of housing, although a proportion of affordable units would be expected.
In terms of any financial contribution expected from the developer, attention was drawn to the addendum to the previous action log that provided details of the S.106 Planning requirements.
In conclusion, concern was also raised by Councillors and residents that the applicants had accessed the site without permission.
In response it was confirmed that applicants were allowed access to sites prior to the determination of applications. In this case, Morris Homes had not obtained the necessary licences from the Council prior to their works to clear the site, once this had been reported the Council’s Property Department had acted swiftly to ensure licences were applied for. It was reported that those applications had been considered and licences had been granted retrospectively.
Residents commented that although licences had now been granted, the actions of the applicant to access the site had been seen by many as a tactic to suggest that the application had been approved, in order to prevent any further objections being submitted.
It was clarified that the access to the site was not a consideration that could be made as part of the planning process concerning the merits of the application.
In closing the item, Councillors encouraged residents to submit their comments and representations on the details of the application to the Planning Department.
Grant was thanked for providing the update and answering the questions of residents.