Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good evening, Councillors, officers and members of the public. Welcome to this evening's North Area Planning Committee. Please be aware that this meeting is being recorded and live streamed to the council's YouTube channel and I welcome viewers joining us online. I'll just run through some housekeeping rules and can I request that all mobile phones are either switched to silent or switched off during the duration of the meeting? Thank you. I'll run through the protocol for member and public participation and the rules of debate. Please note that the chair's ruling during the debate will be final. If you have registered to speak, I will introduce you by name and invite you to address the meeting at the appropriate time. The development management officer will introduce the item relating to the planning application and summarize the main points. When this has been completed, I will then invite members of the public who have registered to speak on the item to address the meeting. Members of the committee will then be given the opportunity to ask for clarification from speakers and the item will then be moved and seconded and debated before a vote is taken. As there are two legal advisors present, I consider it helpful to set out their respective roles. To my right is Sarah Fias, the council solicitor, advising the planning committee this evening on matters of procedure and governance. To her right is Michelle Vass of law firm Denton's who will be advising the planning committee on planning law relevant to the application being determined this evening. Also to my right, I have planning officers who will be presenting the application this evening and ready to want to introduce yourself. Hello everybody, my name is Ready, now I'm the planning officer for this particular project. Louise Holland, planning manager for the Kettering area, Angela Brockett, the second planning officer, dealing with this application. Hello, I'm Jasbé Santu, I'm the interim head of development management and enforcement. Thank you. Chris Bond, I'm North North and Council is supporting the planning team tonight. I'm Master Draper, I'm doing the same as Chris. Thank you very much. So that takes us on to the agenda, the first item on the agenda, apologies for absence. Thank you Chair, we've received apologies from Councillors Charlie Best, Alison DL and David Simms, just to let you know that Councillor Ross Arma has taken up the vacancy for the Labor Group on the committee and Councillor Jean Addison is attending as a substitute member. Thank you to both of you and welcome, Councillor Arma. The agenda item two, declarations of interest. Can I ask members to confirm that they are coming to the meeting with an open-minded, have not predetermined any of the applications, so do members have any declarations of interest? Councillor Carter. Thank you Chair. Yes, I'm the Chair for Bar and Seagrove, parish council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this presentation. Prejuditional interest, is it? It's declared right. It's not a red additional interest, it is. Thank you. That takes us on to the planning application for this evening. M.K. Oblique, 2-0-2-1 Oblique, 0-2-9-2, Hanwood Park, Cranford Road, Kettering, Northamptonshire. And then 1-5-5-J-L. Can I invite the planning officers to introduce the item and provide any updates? Thank you. Thank you Chair. I've got an update and do you want me to read that out in full? Members have the, is that the two pages that Louise has given out? Have members had a chance to read that update sheet that's on your desk? Yes, thank you. Unless there's anything you want to highlight on that? Maybe it's in addition. I think I'd just like to highlight the first point on the update around health. Just to reiterate the additional comments have come in from the ICB in the National Health Service and also the applicants agent David Locks. And those are appended to the update. And I'd just like to, I think, read out the officer comment on that particular issue. So officers have been liaising very closely with the ICB and the NHS. And have been in regular discussions with both of them and the applicant throughout the application process. Officers are committed to ensuring that the development meets the needs for evidence-based health care and provision on the site is made at District Center. The details of how this will be delivered, whether that is the applicant building the facility and then leasing back to the ICB or NHS in terms to be agreed. Or whether it is land and a financial contribution is still subject to further negotiation. As stated in the committee report, full details of the heads of terms and planning obligations will be brought back to committee. Should appropriate planning obligations not be agreed and at that point planning members still have the power to refuse the application when it comes back to you? Thank you, thank you. So if I can start in terms of the presentation. Just to provide you a bit of context, we're in a bit of background to the development, because obviously it's got very long history. It's a committed strategic site within the local plan, in your development plan. And it's been long established through that process and also previous consent. So an original outline in 2010, which has been subsequently varied a number of times. However, the content and the overall scale of that development has remained consistent. The original development was guided by a strategic master plan and the same approach has taken in this particular application before you tonight. Currently, there are reserved matters in place for 2,117 houses, with approximately 1,400 occupied. So there's already a community establishing itself within the site. As part of that, 20% affordable housing will be secured, but we've managed to secure additionality within the site. So that figure is currently at 24%. There's also been a number of on-site elements of infrastructure delivered with the first primary school at Hayfield Cross, drainage, utilities and new roads going in. There's also been another off-site improvements in terms of highways, and that includes some off-site junctions on the Barton Road Corridor, but also traffic calming within the village of Cranford. So there's lots of developments taken place on-site and off-site in connection with Hammond Park. So if I take you back to 2010, that original planning mission had a 10-year time limit for reserve matters on it. And that's why we're here tonight. No more reserve matters can be submitted under that previous outline. So for any future development, whether that be for housing or important community and social infrastructure, it requires a new outline to be in place. So it's critical to have a new outline to be able to progress, particularly with the health provision, the secondary school, and also off-site infrastructure such as Junction 10A. So tonight's decision is very important. And just to mention, in terms of Junction 10A, I'm sure most of you will have seen last week in the House of Commons Road Minister reaffirming their commitment to take forward the Junction 10 project. And obviously that requires a new outline to be approved in principle. So a resolution to grant is important for that piece of infrastructure, but also things like the community infrastructure on-site and the new secretary school, which is to be part-funded by Department for Education. So in terms of the application for you tonight, it's an outline with all matters reserved, so it's to consider in principle whether development is acceptable. The application excludes anything that already has a reserve matters consent. And within the report, you will have seen lots of references to the consent development. And that's just to make very clear that what you're approving tonight is what hasn't got that reserve matters consent. So that's the balance of the residential development, the 3383 figure, plus all the community infrastructure that's required. What I would say is the new outline has been an opportunity to improve. I know that's office's opinion and you'll make your decision for yourself, but it's been a real opportunity to improve the scheme overall. And there's been changes made such as increased biodiversity opportunities and also removal of one of the access points that was to go through a really important site green patch that would connect into Elizabeth Road. So that has been taken out of the scheme. The applications you'll note from the reference number has been in for 3 years, a very long time, but officers have taken that time to ensure that the application is right and that we don't come to committee until it is right. And we believe now is the time for you to make the decision on the application. We've had a number of amendments come in, rounds of re-consultation, and we've set out clearly in the report the level of consultation that's taken place. And I think that the last round of consultation, it was around 2000 letters went out to third parties and neighbours. And from that consultation we had 19 objections, 9 support and 5 comments. So that's just to give you a bit of context as to the level of consultation we've done. But beyond that how more part themselves have done their own engagement work and events on site to engage with the community. And that's something that is really important to continue whatever decision is made tonight to continue that engagement, particularly around design coding, district centre and those important facilities. And to ensure that the community has their say on how those things come forward. A technical point I just want to mention is that the applications accompanied by an environmental statement. And there's quite a long detailed section in the report around that and we've assessed that, but also made sure that it covers all the things it needed to in terms of our scope and opinion that we carried out before the application was submitted. And also we've had to do extensive consultation to adhere to the environmental impact assessment regulations. So I point that out because that is an important legal point just to note for you tonight. So I'll hand over to my colleague in a moment, but just to reiterate, there's around 67, 68 conditions that are put forward to you with obviously a recommend to grant tonight. But also in terms of the 106 officers intend to report that back to committee. But you'll note in the recommendation that should a satisfactory 106 not be agreed. Then there is the option to refuse the application at that point in time when that comes back to you. I'll hand over to my colleague ready. As you'll see from the description, as explained by the planning manager, this is an outline application. What that means is that matters relating to appearance, design, scale, landscaping and access are also matters. Those are details that are reserved and they'll come in at a separate date as a part of a form of a reserve matters application. The other important thing about this project, it is a mixed use project combined to not only housing, which is led by housing. There's an office elements, there's retail elements, there's medical elements, there's recreational elements. There's a commercial general commercial elements, leisure and employment related uses. And as Louise explained, it's an application accompanied by an environmental impact statement. So that has also been taken into account of the consideration of the application. Just looking at settings and context, as you can see from the plan there, this is one of a number of important stable extensions. They're taking put forward in north, north, and the hatch blue areas show the committed principal sustainable extensions. So you can see, for example, around Corby, you can see Price Hall, Weldon Park, as a committed extension. Obviously, this is the project that we're looking at today is for Ketchring. And then on Wellenborough, you've got Wellenborough north, the Greenville Park development and also the Stanton Cross development as well. So the number of major redevelopment growth proposals taking place within North North Amps. And I should also point out that members will be aware of the Tresham Garden Village to the east of Corby on a site of a former airfield, which includes up to 1500 homes, and that's a separate project being promoted through the public sector, private sector and homes in England as well. So that's just to set some context of this particular application. The other important thing is that you'll know that it's an allocation. It's a Ketchring, how more park is a designated committed principal sustainable extension, and your development plans, both the joint core strategy and the site specific part two local plan state that it's a very important project for the area. The housing requirement for the town of Ketchring is set out in the joint core strategy, and the majority of the growth for housing is being set up as being provided through the Ketchring east sustainable urban extension known as Hamou Park. So Hamou Park is very important. It's a requirement promoted by the development plan itself to deliver the area's growth aspirations. And this proposed sue before you provides a major opportunity to take for the principles of the garden communities principles agenda as well. As part of the development proposals, the applicants have submitted a strategic master plan for consideration approval. The strategic master plan outlines the key land use is being evolved, and I'm just going to quickly summarize some of the key issues. There is another land use plan which have asked to be circulated around the table, and I'll go through that part of my presentation because that's easier to follow. So what is this development advocating to deliver? The headlines are as follows, a mix of housing types in 10 years, and just as importantly, a significant element of affordable housing is attached to that. It's also offering quality open space, involving both natural informal and formal green spaces and green infrastructure. It's also providing an internal network of dedicated pedestrian and cycle links, which are direct within the site, but also clearly link to connections in neighbouring areas. It allows a street network to provide you, which allows Hamou Park to be services by public transport, and the planners are going to try and make sure it's designed for people. You've got a district retail centre and a network of local shops and services being provided. You've got a range of spaces for community use. You've got leisure and recreational facilities. You've got a health facility being proposed, and you've also got a nursery, primary and secondary educational facilities being proposed as well. There are also employment uses being proposed, and on top of that, there's also infrastructure needs to be provided to support the community and the economy to grow, so that's also being provided as well. On the plan on the screen, something I need to point out to you, there's a hatched area on the eastern side in red. This land is being reserved for land in connection with it for a future proposed junction 10A off the A14. The detailed design of this matter is being considered by national highways, so things haven't been fixed yet. That's still a fluid situation. Again, as the planning manager explained, Hamou Park is already home to 3,000 residents. Once completed, Hamou Park will serve a community of up to 15,000 or more residents, and will form a key part of that growth. It's one of the largest single sustainable extensions in the country and certainly post the largest in the whole of North Amptonshire. Your offices have approached the submission application in a forensic and logical manner. This location plan just identifies where the site is in relation to ketering and its surroundings where bone C grave is. This outline application relates to 281 hectares of land to the east of ketering and bottom C grave. adjacent to existing predominantly residential development of the town's eastern side edge. As you can see at the bottom in green, it's bounded by the A14. Beyond that, the surrounding areas are open countryside to the north and east. Just to add to the surrounding context, this plan just shows the red outline where the Hamou Park development is going. You can see settlements to the west of it, bottom C grave, bottom latimer to the south. You can see the relationship with ketering town centre. You can see the villages roughly being allocated weekly and warden to the north. And again, you can see the link of the A14 to east angler or to one side and then to the middle and on the other. This plan is the red line plan submitted by the applicant. So just to recap, it's an outline planning application for the development that has yet not been approved, positive on that have been unapproved at this stage. In a clockwise direction, if I've pointed out where the A14 is at the bottom, with the exception of the passors land, the boundary of the site follows the rear boundaries, properties fronting onto Barton Road and Walkton Lane, and then further up on the east side of Eis Lodge Ward. And then the new development takes off Deebel Road and beyond. The boundary crosses Walkton Lane and continues along the northern edge of Eis Lodge estate before crossing the Eis Valley and rejoin the existing urban area towards Elizabeth Road. The river Eis is a river attributed to the river then is situated on the western side. You'll see within the plan two areas in the middle which have been excluded from the site. One is known as the Grange and that's a private residential holding. And the one beneath that is also private residence holding in red and that's Hayfield Lodge. And then you'll also see some Cranford Road at the bottom. And these houses are private dwellings that are outside the application site as well. The developers submitted a number of plans, permissions plans to show the planning committee and the planning officers what the scheme, how the scheme will take shape, how they're going to plan it and taking it forward and things like that. So the first plan I got up for is the zoning plan. And as you can see, parts of it are sort of marked as zone A. Zone A is the area that's already been constructed or under construction. And then you can see the blue area, zone B. And that's the applicants are proposing that as their next part of the development, if they're successful at getting their outline permission and submitting reserve matters applications. And then the red elements are on the eastern side and on the northern fringe are zone C. And that at the moment forms part of their phase two development. But it's also very important that a point I had to commit to that. One of the conditions that the planning officers are recommending is to make sure that as officers we can control the phasing of the development also give the developers flexibility. Just because they're showing that this is how they intend to phase development, things may change in the future and it gives all parties a chance to be flexible about how that development can be delivered. So in the area marked zone A, it's mostly all residential. You've got the kind of operators that are resident properties are like Barrett's homes, Avon's homes, Belway homes, Orbit. Now Grace homes, Taylor Whimpy and David Wilson homes as well are operating in those sort of areas marked zone A. And I also should add that a lot of infrastructure work has also been carried out as well, both to create the vehicle accesses to access those sites and also power utility structures which has also been completed as well as part of that zone A early phase. What I'm going to do next is I've got a series of photographs to sort of just take you through the site. These were taken by a drone back in February and they were specifically done for this planning committee meeting to present to you so a lot of efforts going to make sure the pictures are sharp, they give the clear, and they give us an impression of what the sites look like. What I'm going to do, if I can just make a mass work, it just indicates that first of all, we've got Humboldt Park Avenue leading off from Junction 10. So what I'm going to do is start the photographs from there looking back towards the A14 and Cranford Road. That goes along there. Work my way back up. The blue area is a secondary school site. And then you'll see an existing school where you can get your bearings of primary school which has already been constructed and it just helps create the bearings and that's in that light blue area there. Then we're going to take you through the central open space. And then I'm going to just take you through the proposed district areas there just to show what that site looks like at the moment. So let me start then. Okay. This is the first photograph and just, as you can see, you can see in the first of all, right in the background, you can see the A14 and the warehouses construction that are already there at the back which are outside, obviously outside the site. You've got Cranford Road here, existing houses which are referred to earlier. And then the new link going across there also to Cranford Road and to the existing road network. You've got development by person and homes along there. Advent homes are building their homes there. Orbits have built their houses there. And in the background here, this is where teleimpy are actually building their housing for 350 units. This went to your strategic committee two years ago and the works are going ahead as a result of that decision. And again, I'm walking back up the side, Tamu Park Avenue, again, teleimpy schemes there. Or taking shape all of that area, the motor area there, and grace homes at the back who are cutting through their road networks and create their vehicle accesses. This is the existing primary school hay fields, primary school. And opposite this site is where the secondary school is going this land here. That's the site first. I'll just go a bit further up. Again, just showing the prime school for its context. Opposite is the secondary school. And then we're going to lead towards the district center. Okay. Part of this land is going to form part of the district center. The other half land is going to become housing. The district center itself, if I show you more of the next page. It's going to be focused around this open space area. So it's going to take up segments going all the way up to there around here and all the way along there. And again, you can see new development taking place at the back with by David Wilson homes and Barrett's. And this is scheme that was already been completed by teleimpy. And again, you can see the area of where the district center and some sheltered accommodation will be going as well, all along the area there. And this is the sort of informal open space, central open space, which will help you get your bearings when I get to the other key plans. Just a wider aerial shot of the site from a different angle. This plan really was taken two years earlier, just to show you how much demand has taken place from two years ago. And that, you know, things are taking shape in Hamewa Park. This is taken from the back of the house, the grange, which is said was in the middle of the site. And it's looking sort of north easterly of the site and how it looks at the moment. Right. This is the proposed land use location plan that I'm using because it's easier for me to use this plan to explain the complexities of the various land uses. And I've also circulated plans of that to hard copies of which you use as well to follow through on that. So I'm going to quickly go for this plan. I'm going to start off with the school sites first. I pointed out there's already a school, a primary school that's been provided. The site itself is also allocated three other primary school sites, which are in light blue. So there's one primary school there, another primary school there. And then a third primary school if it's needed there. The dark blue area is the site of the secondary school. I'm now going to say through some of the other commercial side of things. You've got three areas here of where the elements of the district center are going. So that's mostly all commercial enterprises that are taking place there. So what you have is three separate areas. But the intention there be linked, there be some synergy between them, and they're allocated as like DC 1, DC 2 and DC 3 on the strategic master plan. And the ideas that are being put forward as part of this application is firstly there would be a food store being provided with a maximum floor space of up to 3500 square meters. The district center would also contain a health facility. And the current thinking is that it will be a site for a doctor surgery, some kind of health clinic with a practice with a floor space up to 2000 square meters. And again that would form part of the district center's facilities. Within that as well, you'd also have a multifunctional community facility with a floor space of 2000. And that would also be proposed as part of the district center facilities. Other proposals involve a private assisted 128 bed extra care home facility being also being provided within the east side of the district center. And provision is also being made within the district center for a potential day nursery provision, if the need demands. So I've quickly explained what's happening with the district centers. I also need to point out that there are also a number of local centers being proposed as well. And these local centers are just about providing local smaller shops for walk to. People to walk to to use providing their day to day sort of needs. So one area of that local group of shops would be there. Another group of shops would be provided here. And then another local group of shops would be provided there. As you can see, they're sort of distributed across the site and they're intended to be like news agents, a possible hot food takeaway or a restaurant or shop. But those are still to be finalized, those details. Just talking about the commercial side of things. You'll see in purple at the bottom. Those are employment areas. These details have yet to be sorted in terms of what the nature of the employment area will be, but it could be anything from sort of a B1 type of uses. The old B1 now in the sort of a classy category. They could perhaps have some office uses or they could even have a small element of sort of a storage and distribution as well. And then on the sort of a corner going back to junction 10, there's an area which is identified as a mixed employment and leisure use proposal. So that could be a mixture of uses. Again, nothing concrete has come through, but I don't think I've been giving anything away that we're having discussions with, you know, as particular sort of fitness providers about using that relocating to that site. The other important thing I did want to point out while I'm talking about that site here is that you'll see an area there marked as badge mitigation area. You'll see from the report that comments have been made about protected species including badges. We've spent a lot of time with the developers, their consultants, and natural England, the wildlife trust and the North Hans badges group talking about measures out on site how we can improve their situation and we've got mitigation measures in place that address those concerns. What I can't do is also show you those plans because of the nature, how those might be interpreted by other people and how they might be used so there are protected species and they have been mitigated sufficiently so there's no issues related to badges on that site. So I'm just going to go up again. I should just point out that there's sort of the pale sort of light sort of areas like this are are the new residential areas. You'll also see lots of green space being allocated within the site, linear walkways connecting both internally and externally, and I'll go into more details about that later. As I said to you, the developers have provided a series of plans to be considered. This is the plan before your background is one of those plans. And I'm just going to briefly explain what this plan is a template to demonstrate. It seeks to provide information on the structure of the landscape framework within the site, including the use and amount of open space that's being proposed. It forms a key part of the proposals and links out and takes out emphasizes the function of green infrastructure within the site and how it's an important resource. And one of the things that they are using it for is to protect against the provision of flood risk and mitigated against that as well. So there is surface water attenuation, for example, on the central area open space that has been provided. And as the scheme developed, there's a matter of applications, more details will become clear how those matters will be dealt with in detail. The other important thing as well is that you can see the northern link along there. There wasn't issue about a road being built which would have affected the green patch right in the northeast corner. I can now confirm that the road has been removed. It is now going to be like a cycle path or a pedestrian route. And it's also important that I point out that the east-west links towards Cranford, towards Tower Hills are all being pursued. The developers are very amenable to improving space, nature space, biodiversity as part of this green infrastructure approach. The next plan I put up is what I call the Connectivity Plan. And this shows some of the key issues about access and movement, both within the site and outside the site. It provides a structure for movement, for route high hierarchy, and also about existing access arrangements as well. It's also used as a movement network to perhaps help achieve that sort of balance between the use of the car and the promotion of other more sustainable modes of travel. And the other important thing is that connecting these routes, a lot of emphasis is being placed on the conditions in terms of controlling by design codes by the materials where they lead to, how they lead to, and forming various different functions. The next plan that the applicants have submitted relates to densities, they're basically providing a mixture of densities across the site. The closer you get to the centre where the district centres are, the densities are higher, the further you go away, the densities are lower. This is a plan submitted by the developers as part of the submission related to heights. They're asked for certain uses across the site, up to the ridge height, to allow development to be multifunctional, to be used for various different types of uses. And as planners, we don't have a problem with that, but there are conditions recommended in terms of design codes and things where we need to make sure that the heights being proposed are going to be acceptable for each individual building. And that we treat each application as it comes through on its own merits. The next two plans are the phasing plans, they're more detailed than the zoning plans that were discussed earlier. The developers are proposing to carry out works, I submit reserve matters applications dealing with areas relating to the formal open space, infrastructure works, providing the district centre, providing the secondary school, what I mean providing the secondary school and for the primary school. And also to build some of the later phases of the residential and associated in close proximity to the district centre. And that indicates where the phasing plan is being proposed as part of phase one works, including the mixed use to develop leisure employment area at the bottom. There are two links to the rest of the development where they're going to basically cover the northern perimeter of the site. And also the eastern wind with most of the open space, employment uses and residential uses. I'm now going to hand over to Louise to talk about the next two plans. Thank you. Ready. I'm just going to briefly talk about transportation and the issues around that in terms of the application. So first of all, I'd just like to draw your attention to obviously the policy part of that section. There's a couple of pertinent policies in terms of the JCS and that's policies eight and ten. But I'd also draw your attention to paragraph 7.14.8, which is about the MPPF even, which dates that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds. If there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. So I've just pointed out, obviously, we need to make sure we're looking at things in the policy context. And all decisions need to be made in accordance with the development plan unless otherwise pointed out by material planning considerations. So that's how I just draw that to your attention. In terms of the consented development for Hamwood Park, as I referred to at the start of the presentation, there are a number of offsite junctions that required mitigation in terms of the existing consent. And they're identified on page 177 of the agenda. And they're little, as I call them, little letter junctions and they were the mitigation that was required previously. And some of those have been delivered and we've set out in the report where that has happened. And that's been through using 106 monies that have come in from the existing application. So there's those junctions that were previously required. Two other elements of infrastructure that were required was the weekly walk-in avenue that was to link the A43 to the site. And also junction 10A, which I've already mentioned tonight. And both of those pieces of infrastructure were required at 2,700 units. As stated in the report, and I'll just bring it to retention verbally as well, that at the time of the original application, the weekly walk-in avenue was only modelled by the applicant at that time. At 2,700 units and the full development of 5,500 units. So at that time we knew it was required at some point between those two. But obviously we had to go make sure we conditioned for the earlier trigger to make sure that that was in when it was needed at that time. But it's quite reasonable to assume that that might have been later than that 2,700 trigger point. Just to also mention a smaller piece of infrastructure, but nonetheless important to the community is the Walk-In Lane Traffic Calming, which is identified as a project that will be delivered using 106 monies from another development in Bancier Grave, the development of Power Lane, Red Row Homes. And then the balance will be from the existing Section 106 for Homeward Park. So that's another offsite piece of work that needs to be done, which will be of benefit to the community. In terms of this application, the report sets out, in terms of a local network, the impact, and just briefly to summarise, there are a number of junctions that are demonstrated through the applicant's transport assessment to be overcapacity without the development. But with the development, they're obviously made worse, so there will be some mitigation required. As part of that transport assessment, the applicant has modelled the weekly walk-in avenue, and they've modelled that in at 4,500 units. And the result of that assessment has shown that the junctions that were shown overcapacity now work and they're within capacity. And that's the effect of having the weekly walk-in avenue in at that point at 4,500. So that piece of infrastructure, the weekly walk-in avenue, remains the applicant's proposed, as they call it, backstop mitigation. And I'll come on to why it's called the backstop mitigation now. So in terms of their overall strategy, it's fair to say it's based on active travel, modal shift, and sustainability. That's the sort of vision for Hamlet Park and where I think the applicant is trying to head, and obviously we support them in that ambition. And that monitor and manage strategy really has three main components, and I'd just like to take you through that. But just to say, in terms of monitoring and manage, that's all about monitoring here and now. So you monitor current travel patterns, travel behavior, and impacts at that moment in time. And it's different to, I'm sure highways will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're predicting provide where you look at now what is needed and you set that mitigation in stone. But obviously with the development that has a long build out, it's important to retain some flexibility as the council so that we can respond to changing conditions on the network. But also, importantly, we need to retain the control, and that's where the monitor and manage strategy comes in. So the first component is trip suppression, and that's basically trying to reduce the number of existing movements on the network. And that's the first component of the applicant strategy. So they're really focusing on school trips because that's considered to be a good opportunity to try and affect modal shift at peak times. And the report sets out a number of ways in which they're trying to do that. The second component is modal shift. Now, what I would say is the modal shift that the developer is targeting is very ambitious. So it's between 20 and 27% from the AM to the PM peak. And again, it's all focused on sustainability and active travel. And that comes on to the plans that we've got up on the screen. So part of that is new and enhanced cycle ways. And one of the cycle ways that potentially could come forward from the development using 106 money or potentially conditioned would be one on Barton Road and that corridor. And that aligns with the council's priorities and the LC WIP projects that we've identified as a council. And the next slide is other potential cycle way proposals. For example, London Road up to the railway station in the hospital. So I put these plans up to show you an indication of the things that the development could do. And this is all subject to obviously agreeing these things through the monitor and manage strategy. And they need to be agreed upfront within that strategy. And we would need to look at as officers, which routes and which improvements would give the greatest opportunities for modal shift, but also what would have the wider benefits as well for Kettering. So looking at those two in tandem. There's also other measures set out in terms of public transport and other measures that the developer is proposing to try and achieve that modal shift. Those two things, the trip suppression and the modal shift all need to be agreed within that strategy. The final component and probably the most important is mitigation. At the very start of the process, you have to agree what mitigation would be needed and when it is needed. Should those other two things not work? Whether it be you're not successful at all in any modal shift or whether you hit a percentage that is below what you're targeting. You need to agree what is the applicant's called backstop mitigation. So that is we agree that upfront, what is needed for everything else fails. And we are proposing, I'll come on to in a minute, a condition regarding an updated TA and I'll explain a little bit more how we see that coming forward and how we're presenting that to you. So generally in terms of the monitor manager approach, you have to agree at the outset, points at which you will review traffic conditions. And every time there is review, it requires a developer to submit a sort of mini version of a transport assessment so that you can have a look at what successes you've had with obviously modal shift and trip suppression. And then what mitigation is needed? It might be that the mitigation you agreed at the start, it's still needed at that point in time. It might be that it's needed later, or it might be that it's not needed at all because you've been so successful with your modal shift that you no longer need that mitigation. But obviously it's important at the outset to make sure that the review mechanism is set out stringently in the 106. And that's why as well the 106 would come back to you with those obligations so you can see how that whole process would work. I think as officers, I'd just like to say that we think monitoring manages the correct approach and I say that again because of the length of the build out, it does give you an opportunity to look at traffic impacts at that point in time. So if the council will say look at something and actually go junction A is not what we want, we want junction G now, it gives you that flexibility. But importantly, we retain the control and that all comes down to the wording and the conditions within the 106 agreement to make sure that the framework for that is set correctly. So that's the critical thing because that will set how that whole process works and the governance around it as well. So I'm conscious I've spoken for a long time and hard but there's a few more key points I just want to just to run through with you. So I've talked a lot about the shift mitigation. Now, in terms of that mitigation that you need to set up front, the applicant is currently proposing the weekly walk-in avenue. That is their mitigation, if everything else fails, and for that to go in at 4,500 units. And that has been shown to work through their transport assessment. However, within the report, officers have addressed the issues and constraints with the weekly walk-in avenue and it's only right and proper that we do that and we present that to you. There's issues around funding currently and also is a sensitive location in terms of heritage impacts, biodiversity and landscape. So whilst it is a mitigation that is still proposed by the developer, there are issues associated with the delivery of that. And officers consider the alternatives to that mitigation should be considered and explored. That's not been done at this point and we think it's important to have a look at the alternatives and we propose that is done through condition 61, which requires an updated transport assessment to be completed by the applicant before any work start on site. And that will look at other junction improvements and alternatives to the we were, along with the other things listed in that particular condition. And the outcome of that transport assessment will be effectively to set the mitigation for the monitor and manage strategy. In terms of accesses, we've talked a lot about off-site mitigation, but it's important just to come back to obviously the accesses into the site. Now, three have already been delivered, the three key ones. Now, the monitor and manage approach allows you to come back and just monitor the conditions at those access points and that's something that we don't have currently in our conditions on the original outline. So, again, that's an opportunity for us to improve and to keep conditions monitored in those locations. And if there was something that was needed, we could ask for that mitigation to be carried out and improvements to be made to those access points. And that's particularly important for the access point near to junction 10, access F, which is the bottom load junction 10 access into the site. Because as the junction 10A scheme comes forward, it may require some work to junction 10. And then obviously the knock-on impact, maybe there may be some works needed to junction the access F to make, and it all needs to be looked at comprehensively. And that's why officers, you know, another reason why we think that monitoring management strategy is a good idea, but it gives you the opportunity to look at those access points again and look at it all in the round. Rather than the current consent just fixes that access point as it is. And then, obviously, we're talking about junction 10A there. In terms of the strategic impact, national highways currently have a holding objection on the application. And that's because they need some additional technical work carried out by the applicant, which is already underway. And that's to allow them to come back with their final set of conditions and trigger points for the mitigation, including junction 10A for the scheme. But importantly, they support the overarching principle of development and are happy for this application to come to committee before you tonight. And just before I finish, just to say that in terms of that, we are requesting delegated authority to add any conditions that national highways may request, and that's to add them on to the current list you've already got. So I'll hand back over to my colleague, I think. Ready, you're picking up the next section. Thank you. What I'd like to do now is turn to section seven of the report, the evaluation. Which explains why we've come to the conclusions that we have done. And I'm just going to go through a few bullet points on each of the topics that are raised there, just to clarify things how we got to what we have got to. Okay, the first topic I wanted to talk about was sustainability, and I wanted to draw your attention to paragraphs. One point four point two six, and give you some assurances that this topic has been thoroughly analyzed and scrutinized, and both ourselves as officers and Hammer Park's consultants and Hammer Park themselves worked very positively with us to make sure that this development is as sustainable as it possibly can be. There's lots of experimentation, lots of good ideas that are being proposed. And our advisor that we use is our consultant advisor's sustainability was from electric places, formerly of electric Corby. And again, it sets out how we're sort of doing various measures under seven point four point two seven and recommendations, what we're going to consider. And also, it sort of points out that there's conditions attached about getting a sustainability strategy submitted as part of the developed proposals. And in all terms of developers, they've been doing a lot of work on this subject behind the scenes as well. On concluding, concluding on this issue, it is considered the current proposals of the capacity to significantly contribute towards sustainable development in compliance with both national and local planning policies. The next topic I want to talk about is design. And I've just got a number of bullet points I just want to highlight if you just bear with me. If I can draw your attention to paragraph seven point five point two six. You'll note that the applicant have committed themselves to producing design coding and working with a planning authority. As with sustainability, as we design, the developers are willing to work with us in a cooperative manner and develop our ideas jointly in terms of exploring all types of using things to improve the situation at Hamwood Park. It's important that members are aware that for each reserve matters, there'll be like a strategic master code and an area design code, which will guide those particular planning applications. The next topic I want to talk about is housing. And if I can draw your attention to paragraph seven point six point two one in the report. The report emphasizes that the developers are offering a good mix of market market and affordable units. For the three thousand two and eight three units, if they were approved for this particular application, that would equate from the information provided by our housing team 677 affordable units being provided on the site. And again, 7.6 point 22, there's information that we split up how that affordable housing would be provided what the correct mix should be. There is a requirement in the section 106 to make sure that the formal housing is pepper potted meets the design standards that your committees are looking for as well. And subject to the interest of planning conditions and planning obligations, the housing proposals are considered to be acceptable in accordance with the development plan policies. The next topic I would like to touch on is biodiversity. Again, the developers, their consultants, the Urban Wildlife Trust, North Ants Badgers Group, natural England have all worked together to cooperate with each other to get the best solutions and the best protection measures and enhancements for biodiversity. And a lot of the concerns that were raised initially have all been addressed satisfactorily to all the statutory bodies. The next topic I want to talk about is green infrastructure on 7.8 of the report. And the conclusions that we've reached on this particular topic is that again, the proposals would contribute towards the delivery of green infrastructure throughout the whole of the site. It improved and enhanced the environment in terms of visual assessment in terms of biodiversity. And again, it's in compliance with the development plan. The next topic I want to talk about is the creation of active places on 7.9. Particular section highlights all the different sporting proposals and leisure proposals and open space proposals that are all being provided and an assessment is set out on the 7.9.18 of the report. Just to emphasize again, again, the developers worked very positively with us. They worked very positively with Sport England. They worked very positive with our sort of policy officers. And our view is that the proposals are acceptable from that perspective. And in compliance with the development plan is the conclusions that this element of the report states. Community uses, as I've pointed out, there's going to be a community hall being provided with a sports element to that proposal. And the conclusions reached on that is that the uses and the combined sort of sports community uses are acceptable and supported in line with the development plan policies. The next topic I'm just going to quickly touch on is healthcare provision. The report points out in detail under section 7.11. All the comments made on that particular topic. And in our view, a lot of what's being said on that particular issue will be addressed through conditions and as part of the section 106 planning obligation. And for those reasons, we feel that the development is in accordance with the development plan policies. The next topic is education. You'll see from the previous presentation that they're providing three primary schools. When I say they're providing, they're allocating three sites for primary schools and a site for a secondary school. And those are negotiations that will take in place with education authority. And again, there will be required to contribute in terms of financial contributions. And that's being addressed through section 106 obligations. What I'd like to do now is hand over to my colleague Angela. She's going to take us through some of the other key themes and address of the issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Eddie. Just to conclude the presentation, I'm going to cover some issues on retail impact as well as viability and planning obligations section 106 and the planning balance as part of the conclusion. So we're nearly there. Just looking at the retail impact, the district center obviously provide a mix of different uses as ready as alluded to. So we've got a mixture of various usage which largely come under class E in the use classes order. Class E covers a lot of different types of uses and you can actually move between the different uses in class E. So it's important that we've worked very closely with the applicants to ensure that we maintain a vibrant mix of uses within the district center. So we have got some of those floor spaces fixed just to recap on the community building up to 2,000 square meters including indoor playing courts as up to 2,000 square meter site provided for health care facility and the health care requirement. They're looking to seek a 1,084 square meter building within that size as well as 2,000 square meters for flexible class E uses. So in terms of the retail element, there's going to be 3,500 square meter and cut food store as well as 1,600 square meters of other retail uses and 450 square meters food and beverage use. That's within the district center and of course the 3 local centers, there's a total of 1,300 square meters of class E floor space of which 700 square meters will be retail stroke food and beverage. So in order to maintain a balanced mix of retail and food and beverage type uses, it's important that that's been properly assessed as part of the retail and leisure impact assessment. So retail and leisure impact assessment was submitted as part of the application and that was assessed on behalf of the council by first plan. So offices and first plan for it very closely with the applicants team to achieve a quantum mix of floor space for retail and food and beverage uses. So there's no overemphasis on one particular type of retail that could have an impact on other centers other than Hamer Park. So the different configurations of the floor space that had been looked at that potentially could come forward were set out in four different scenarios. And that's actually in table. So in paragraph 7.13.29 in the table in that paragraph, that's on page 167. So from that table, you see the potential for the greater amount of retail floor space coming forward. The sale of convenience goods and scenario one was considered to have the most significant adverse impact on catering town center. Mainly because capturing town center does have quite a heavy emphasis on convenience retail that we need to ensure that that's not impacted upon. The other two scenarios were considered to have less than significant impact in the existing centers with no significant impact on any future investment in the town center of Kettering or Burton Latimer and also in the Sainsbury store in Desbra. So offices are satisfied that that has been carefully looked at. So it was concluded in close discussion with the first plan that the retail policy tests had been satisfied and the level of impact, the proposed development on the vitality and viability of the town centers particularly Kettering is acceptable. And so to ensure that this is maintained in the future, conditions are proposed to avoid the level of convenience retail use coming forward in scenario one. And obviously to restrict the size of the single food store to 3500 square metres. So the local planning authority will retain control in the future because we're proposing removing some permitted development rights for changes of use within those uses. In addition to the retail impact to sequential test also was required in accordance with part two of the local plan and having considered sites identified in Kettering town center area action plan. Also following discussions with the planning policy team was concluded that there were no suitable and available sequentially preferred sites other than obviously being on humble part which is obviously the most sustainable location. So again the application satisfies the requirements of the sequential test and those are the two things that need to be satisfied, the impact test and the sequential test. So in terms of the retail uses and commercial uses that been offered in the district center and local centers, offices are confident that it will provide a vibrant, a varied mix of uses that wouldn't impact on the nearby centers. Just turning now to viability, the development has been subject to a financial viability assessment. The applicants submitted that on behalf undertaken by white land limited on behalf of the applicants and this was tested by Aspenal Verdi, the council's financial advisor on that. So the applicant's assessment does show that the scheme is viable with at least 42 million pounds available for section 106 contributions and that's set out in the applicants summary report in appendix three of the report. And Aspenal Verdi however has shown the scheme to be viable with a greater amount available for section 106 contributions and they've estimated between 46.7 million and 50.746 million and their summary report set out in appendix four of the report. And both these assessments assume a 20% affordable housing in accordance with policy 30 of the JCS. So the difference in amount is largely due to the difference in the cost parameters of the development and these costs which have been scrutinized both by Aspenal Verdi and the cost consultant appointed on behalf of the council. Discussions will be ongoing with the applicant as the development, development progresses and more details of the cost come forward for scrutiny. And this will be part of the ongoing discussions as part of the 106 agreement as well. It's recommended a review mechanism is included in the 106 agreement to key stages of development. Obviously to ensure that any favorable uplifts in viability due to movements in costs value markets and scheme optimization is included going forward. Again, the final details of how the review mechanism will look and will work will be subject to ongoing discussions as part of the 106 agreement. So based on Aspenal Verdi's assessment, officers are satisfied that subject to assumptions made on the benchmark land values and profit the scheme is viable. With the worst case scenario being 42 million pounds available for section 106 contributions and the best case up to 50.7 million being available. So detailed negotiations are ongoing and will continue on the phasing of the development and conditions are proposed with respect to phasing. As well as final agreed financial contributions for heads of terms and triggers to ensure that for instance much needed health and community facilities are provided early in the next phase without unreasonably impacting on viability. So these discussions obviously will need to be had within the context of viability and will be ongoing as part of the 106 agreement and the final details of all of that will be brought back to committee before anything is finally approved. So in terms of the planning obligations, the list of planning obligations heads of terms for the new 106 is set out in section 7 of the report on page 193. The council currently holds 11.1 million for from the roof charge already connected, collected under the existing 106 agreement. And that's after taking into consideration projects already delivered and those currently underway or committed. There is currently money available for the animal parks secondary school that's 7.5 million plus indexation, Deebel Road traffic calming 0.185 million, as well as Walton Lane traffic calming, which will be part funded by animal park and also part funded by the section 106 contributions secured. Work is currently underway to forecast the roof charge to be collected for the consenting parcels, which is already obviously got permission, which are still to be built out under the existing 106. And once this is known, it will give the current sum available, which could be used towards the new section 106 agreement and all of that will be put into the part as part of the ongoing discussions on viability and what is actually going to be available for. The new section 106 heads of terms. Officers will need to ensure that what is being requested in the new 106 agreement is related to this specific application. That's for the remaining 3,383 units rather than the whole five and a half thousand. So it's to make sure that it's commensurate with this current application. And of course, any planning obligations or regulation 1,2,2 compliant. Members will note on the late sheet, further representations on the health request from the NHS and ICB and obviously the applicants response to that to the health provision. There was concern that there wasn't going to be any health provision, but I hope now that you realize that officers are committed to ensure there will be health provision actually provided on the site. And the district center does include a site for up to 2,000 square meters, and that will be enough to provide a health care facility of 1,85 square meters that the health authority have required. Again, the detailed discussions of all of that in terms of any temporary type uses that might be needed until such times as the health care building can be delivered. How the health care building is going to be delivered, whether it's part delivery, or it's actually going to be provided by the health care, by the health authority that will be part of further discussions going forward. But in terms of this application, the principle of providing health care within the district center is what's being looked at tonight. How that's actually going to be delivered will be part of the 106 will be brought back to committee for further discussions and approval. So all planning obligations to be secured and the triggers for delivery will require for further negotiations in the context of viability. And obviously, offices consider things such as affordable housing on site, public health, education, community facilities are key priorities as part of those negotiations, and those will be high up the list. When we're seeking to provide sufficient funds for those types of facilities that are needed. So, to now go on to the planning balance and the conclusion, the planning policies cited in the report are all up to date just to make that absolutely clear. So, the planning processes consider that the policies are fulfilled and they are a dear to, and the policies are given full weight in the decision making process. There are economic, environmental, and social benefits to the development which weigh in favor as set out in section eight of the report. To recap, the development would deliver a significant amount of new homes up to 3,383 new homes out of the total of 5500 in the SUE. This will include a substantial amount of affordable housing of variable mix and 10 years, make valuable and significant contribution towards meeting these strategic housing need and delivering targets, which is a significant benefit to which substantial weight is attached. The construction work will support a reasonable level of employment, including apprenticeship training and will bring associated benefits to the local economy over the 10 years or more that's left for the development. The development consists of approximately 49,000 square metres of employment floor space, including a district centre of approximately 13,000 to 50 square metres with local centres, schools, including some provision, leisure facilities, other and silué social facilities, such as community and health facilities, as well as unassisted living units. They're providing 128 extra care facilities. Additional educational facilities, including primary schools to meet the needs of Hanwell Park and the wider area and mixed secondary school and send provision. We're seeking a net benefit gain for biodiversity with a commitment of approximately 5% net gain, which will be secured through detailed design state. Mitigation measures for protected species, including special measures proposed for the badges. Promotion of sustainable travel with a monitor and manage strategy. Sustainable measures through the area design coding, green infrastructure and formal open space, with opportunities for allotments and community orchards. Indoor and outdoor sports provision with play and recreation, long term stewardship of the public realm and community infrastructure. Improvements to strategic highway infrastructure through funding of improvements to the A14 Junction and A14 Junction 10A. And with that amount of benefits and meeting the much need community facilities and retail facilities and general facilities within the district centre and local centres to not only serve the future population, but also the existing population of Hanwell Park to create a more balanced, sustainable community. So, weighing this up against negative impacts in terms of negative impact, there is less than substantial harm identified to heritage assets. And this weighs against the proposal, although the harm is less than substantial and it's outweighed by the significant benefits already identified. Other harm in relation to adverse impacts on the built and natural environment and residential amenities during construction. But with the mitigation proposed through conditions, moderate weight is given to this. So, in respect to the overall planning balance, significantly the benefit significantly outweigh the harm towards collective economic, environmental and social benefits. Consistent with sites allocation in the local plan and that meets the council's aspiration in delivering a sustainable garden community. So, taking all these matters set out in the report and balancing the benefits of the against the potential harm officers consider the planning balance tips in favour of the development. So, to ensure the remainder of the site is built out, including much needed social facilities and transport infrastructure, a revised application for the remainder of the SUES therefore vital. And the significant effects and mitigation arising from the development assessed through the environmental statement subject to mitigation measures secured through conditions and the proposed 106. Officers are satisfied that the development would lead to an acceptable development with the planning balance. So, to conclude with the considerable level of benefits subject to conditions set out in the report and to further negotiations on the 186. The application is recommended for approval in accordance with the resolution as set out in section one of the report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. That really comprehensive introduction to this. Thank you. We have five speakers this evening who have registered to speak and each speaker has three minutes. So, I'll invite speakers in the order that they're shown on the speakers list, after which I'll ask members of the members of the committee whether they have any questions of clarification for each of each speaker. So, the first speaker I have is Fiona Banks, Chair of Hanwood Park Residence Association, who's a third party supporter. When you're ready, if you want to start your speech and you have three minutes. Thank you. So, as the Chair said, I'm Fiona Banks, Chair of the Residence Association on Hanwood Park. Since moving to Hanwood Park in 2017, we've been working to build a thriving community. We have some major challenges that this planning application will help with. To our recent Easter event, even though it was windy and raining, we had over 200 families join us and we held many other well attended events throughout the year. We do find, however, the majority of the attendees are from the closest area to the event location. The two amazing sections of Hanwood Park are currently not connected by any meaningful route, which causes a challenge bringing our community together. We also have to leave Hanwood Park increasing to traffic to use any indoor spaces for events such as our quiz nights. A support this planning application, which will help us continue to grow, are already thriving community. It provides the opportunity to connect to a manner and gardens to the rest of Hanwood Park and offers a central community area with more secure outdoor spaces for our community events. The secondary school and community buildings will enable us to build on this existing community and work with others to offer activities such as girl guiding, knitter natter and even a Hanwood Park football team. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do any members have any questions? No. Thank you very much. Our second speaker is Councillor MIKE SMITH from Wheatley Parish Council. Again, when you're ready, you have three minutes. Can you put your microphone on? Thank you. My name's Mike Smith. I'm the chairman of Wheatley Parish Council. We're concerned at the removal of Wheatley Walk to Avenue from this application. Originally, it was destined to be looked at at 2,700 houses. It's now a backstop at 4,500 houses. The other access road to the Grange has been turned into a footpath, quite rightly, to protect the green patch. But that now means there's no dedicated access to the development from the northern side, so all traffic to and from Corby is going to be funneled through walked and weekly villages, all the accesses on the southern side. It's further compounded by the doubt about the future of Junction 10A. There's been talk tonight about it being built, but there's also been talk about doubt and stipulations and other bits and pieces. We haven't seen any data to support the move from 2,700 houses to 4,500 houses, other than this model shift, and it's already been noted that that's quite an aggressive target of 25%. Schools start at 9 o'clock, people start work during our shower, and we fail to see our model shift will have such a dramatic change on the movement of traffic. So we firmly believe that the lack of a northern access is going to result in significant traffic increases through the villages of Wheatley and Water. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions of clarification in Mr. Councillor Smith? No? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Councillor Craig Skinner from Kettering Town Council. Thank you. Again, you have three minutes when you're ready. Thank you. The removal of access point C is welcome. However, the result is no mitigation for the increase in traffic to the north west of the development. The removal of the wee wife on the plan is also a significant concern, as is the monitor and manage approach proposed. It's a reactive approach, and Kettering Town Council disagrees with this style of approach. The Strategic Road Improvement Plan evidences the need for a new link road to the north from Henry Park. The developer's own assessment shows that a number of junctions in the town will operate over capacity and be made worse with this development. However, with the inclusion of the wee wife, the junctions are shown to operate within capacity. The modal shift modelling used by developer is overly optimistic. The impact of the proposed wait and see approach is not in the interest of residents who are already being negatively impacted by increased traffic. The considerable time taken for highways improvements to be actualised means by the time it is decided improvements are required, it will already be too late. Meanwhile, residents are left with an insufficient road network. The wee wife continues to be required and the trigger point should remain at 2,500 houses. Since the development began, residents have complained about the impact of construction traffic on Walton Lane. A robust construction management plan is urgently required, which should specify that construction movements along Walton Lane should be prohibited and set out the requirement of hall roads to be used for construction traffic. The approach to the provision of healthcare facilities to date has been flawed. As a result, GP surgeries and dentists are over capacity. Any plan permission should mandate provision of both GP and dentist surgeries explicitly. The ICB highlights the need for a GP surgery to ensure that current residents of Ketran are not negatively impacted. They also note that the impact will be significant and unsustainable if not mitigated against. The ICB states that there is no available capacity within the surrounding locality and local GP's have seen their practices increased by over 2,000 patients with the closest being the most impacted. Hammer Park is already having a negative impact on the residents of Ketran. The local plan for Ketran states that the Council will seek to maintain and improve the health and wellbeing of communities and the information provided by the ICB shows the detrimental effect of the development on residents of Ketran through oversaturation of GP surgeries, not to mention local NHS dentists which are almost non-existent. To approve this outline application without mandating for the immediate provision of suitable healthcare facilities, even if only temporary, prior to any further houses being built or occupied, it's clearly against this core policy and detrimental to existing and future residents of Ketran. The condition for the provision of facilities for health services when the 2,500 house triggers reached should remain. This development is bigger in population than Burton, Latimer, Desra and Rothwell. We must have adequate health and road infrastructure in place prior to any further applications being presented. 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do members have any questions of clarification from Councillor Skinner? No. Thank you. Next is Councillor John Carroll. I think you know the procedure, you have 2 minutes when you're ready. Good evening. Bond Sea Grey Parish Council wish to make the following points. It is vital that the infrastructure on all levels continues to be delivered before house building. There is a lack of clarity of the healthcare provision infrastructure for the NHS services, e.g. doctors, dentists, pharmacy, etc. in this new area. We would like to know how will this be delivered and guaranteed. Will Barton Sea Grey receive any S106 money? We are concerned about the congestions that will result on the existing road network due to the increase in generated traffic. What are the plans for access in and out of Hanwood Park, especially as it is no longer able to go through the green patch? What are the plans for park areas and green spaces? And lastly, Barton Sea Grey Parish Council would like to see leisure facilities include, especially for children of all ages. Thank you. Thank you. Do members have any questions of clarification in Councillor Colle? No. Thank you very much. And our last speaker is Donna Stock Agent for the applicant. And when you're ready, you have three minutes. Good evening, members. Hanwood Park has been committed since 2010 and is home to some 3,000 residents. Implemented are some 1,400 properties with 24% affordable housing, new roads and utilities and new successful primary school, Hayfield Cross, open space, play areas and, importantly, long-term stewardship through the community trust. Once completed, there will be a further 3,400 homes all thereabouts towards the Council's housing supply, over 6 million in Council tax revenue, employment space with some 3,600 direct jobs, along with schools, open space, health services and other infrastructure to make it truly a sustainable development. Permission is now essential to provide this infrastructure and secure investment from third parties like David Lloyd and national food retails, but also from central government funding for the proposed secondary school and for New Junction 10A. Hanwood Park also remains a key plan for the successive government's new settlement and garden community program and is strongly supported by homes England. There is also money held in the section 106 account, which cannot be fully utilized again until the reserve matters can be submitted. Any delay or deferment at this stage puts this funding and these opportunities at risk and will further delay the delivery of much needed community facilities on the site, undermine confidence in the project and limit economic and housing growth. This application is broadly the same as the previously approved scheme, but with some relatively small changes that have significant positive impacts, the retention of the much valued green patch, enhanced by diversity net gain proposed at a minimum of 5% and the better scaling of the district centre are just some examples. We also seeking to incentivise sustainable transport through better on site facilities and more transport choice through a monitor and manage approach. This ensures the most cost effective solutions are identified and delivered when and where they're needed. The Hanwood Park consultant team, including ourselves, have all delivered schemes using monitor manage approach, including Alperby World. Our strategy has been fully endorsed by national highways and can support further funding streams by showing a North North Township that has demonstrated an increased vision ambition. We continue to work closely with stakeholders and partners and whilst we face common challenges with key organisations such as the NHS. We will ensure that we progress collaboratively to deliver the best outcomes on the ground to meet the needs of existing and future residents and neighbourhoods. We wholeheartedly support the officer's recommendation to committee to prove the application subject the conditions and heads of terms for the Section 106 set out on the committee report. This application has been considered since March 2021, with a scenario of residents on the site waiting for the delivery of services and infrastructure. It is now of critical importance that a resolution to grant is given to allow for the continued collaboration progress between Hanwood Park and NNC. If you could just come to a conclusion, thank you very much. Do members have any questions of Councillor doing? Yeah, thank you very much for that. Just very quickly, the monitor and managing that you're doing, is that you, is that Hanwood Park doing that or is that an independent? No, it's Hanwood Park's approach. We're doing that ourselves. We're working obviously in collaboration with various different partners such as Home Run, which I think has been mentioned in association with various schools. But the approach is taken and will be monitored obviously by ourselves and continue to be managed by the Council. Thank you. Thank you very much. For transparency, I would just like to inform those presents that members were invited to attend a briefing presented by planning officers on 17 May 2024. This meeting was held to provide context to the planning application. It provided members who attended with background information only. Members who did or did not attend this briefing should not be considered as prejudiced. As you've just heard, planning officers have provided a comprehensive presentation this evening and members must determine this application based upon the information, presentations and debates they have and we'll hear tonight. I'm sorry, I've just 10 speakers. Therefore, moving on to application, NCA, oblique, 20210292. Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the direction of up to 3,383 dwellings included associated schools, district and local centres. Hotel healthcare, leisure employment, formal and informal open space, including play facilities, roads and associated infrastructure. For the purposes of debate and in accordance with the Council's meeting rules 19.2 and 19.21, I will move the recommendation stated on page 6 of your agenda papers. That includes outline planning approval A to E, which is stated on page 6. Together with the additional condition on the update sheet, which you've been given tonight. Do I have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Carter. So I open the floor to any questions, members. Councillor MARX. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's good news on Junction 10A and I'm also glad to hear and see from the report that the officers are working on the medical health provision. But clearly more work needs to be done. And as you say, if the work is not done satisfactorily on healthcare provision, we reserve the right at a later date to refuse the application. I thought that needed to be made clear. Thank you. I think you're right. And certainly the conditions on this application are very tight and it's very helpful. Thank you. Councillor Addison. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, officers for the presentation. You mentioned that the 24% viability, that's not guaranteed, is it? Because so often developers come back to us to say that the site's not viable and go for reduction in that. Another comment, maybe. Did you say there was a provision for older people on site? What is the possibility of there being provision for a residential children's home, which is much needed within the Council? If I pick up the point regarding affordable housing, and then I'll pass over to my colleague, Angela, about the extra care in the district centre. So in terms of affordable housing, the old consent secured 20% affordable. That was never changed or varied, and we actually secured more affordable housing through what's already currently built on site. So to date, we've achieved 24%. And the applicant is still proposing 20% affordable housing through the 106, and that is one of our priority areas for the 106 negotiations. Just to reiterate, there is extra care facility for the elderly for 128 units. There isn't anything specifically for a children's home, but that's, I mean, there is obviously a large amount of residential within the application. So if there's any requirement for that coming forward, but at the moment, there's nothing specific for a children's home. Maybe the developer might like to consider that. Well, that's, as I say, that would be part of the residential, residential use, there's a demand for that. What I would say is the land you schedule puts a use class for C2 use, and C2 use does cover children's homes as well, and often there is sometimes a bit of a grey area and sometimes uses whereby you have smaller households where children looked after. If it forms a household, it can actually sometimes fall within class C3, which is a residential use. So I think there are still opportunities to do something like that, and actually that's a really good point, and I think that's something we should take forward. Thank you, Councillor Gelly. Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Well, that was a really comprehensive discussion about this application. The concerns I've got looking at this, and I understand what some of the speakers are saying about the medical provision. I think it's important to understand that this is really important for all residents of this development. This is a really big development over the years. I live in Rothwell, and we have the Rothwell and Despera Medical Centre. And we've been working with those as the town council, Desper and Rothwell, working together to talk to them about medical provision in Roswell and Despera, because the medical centre there is at full capacity, and people can't get appointments to see their own doctors. So I think it's really important. We can't just put this on the back burner and say, we'll look at it further down the line. I think it's important that we start thinking about putting some money towards this, because when people move in, if they're ill, what do they do? And you've also got a situation with the hospital. What's being done to mitigate the impact on the hospital? Catherine General Hospital is already at capacity. People can't get appointments, so waiting lists are miles long. And this is a massive development. We've got an extra 2,500 houses as well coming in in Roswell and Despera. That is going to impact on everything. We're already being told there are medical centres in Catherine that we can go to. But that's no good, because you've got 5,500 houses going to be built here. So I think with all due respect, developers need to start thinking about where can we get some cash to get medical provision for the people already there, and the new people coming in. Thank you. Thank you. I agree, medical and health facilities are badly needed, but if you refer to the update sheet as well as the committee report, officers have been liaising closely with the integrated care board. And the NHS and Section 106 discussions are being had. And that will come back to this committee to approve the Section 106. So I... Just asking your email. Can I come back on that chair? Of course. What's the situation with the hospital? Can I ask Louise, did you want to come back on that? In terms of the hospital, the ICB haven't requested any contributions to that. But I'm aware through other colleagues that are working with the hospital in terms of their new redevelopment project. I don't have any update on that before me now to give you. But I know that they're working on sort of a phased approach where I think it's first they're looking at access and new car parks, then urgent care. And then obviously the rebuild project, which obviously need a need plan and application in itself. But I know that work is currently underway. And that's been guided through PPA with other colleagues. So that is being progressed, but no contributions have been requested from the ICB. But just generally in terms of health vision, we agree it's one of our top priorities for the 106. And it's just how it's delivered. And that requires, we believe, more conversations, negotiations between the developer, LPA, and the ICB to work out the best solution. We're not saying there is no solution. It's just what is the best way of delivering it. And it might be through our forecasting of the existing 106. There's funds available now that we can allocate towards that project now or allocate towards the temporary facilities. But that requires obviously that additional step. So if we receive a resolution to grant, then that gives us the ability to proceed with those negotiations and to look at all of those things and then ultimately bring them back for your approval or not as the case may be. But that's obviously the ultimate control the committee has with regard to the 106. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, officers. That was a very good presentation. We learned a lot from that. I'm not going to go on and on about the hospital, but I do think that our developer friends need to understand that we do need this facility. If we're showing in this graph that all the doctor surgeries are over prescribed, then it has to happen now. Not in a year or two years time or when the first thousand houses are built because it's already over prescribed. So I guess just to make that labor on that point more than anything, so it's going to be important. And I think time makes people. So if there's a timing issue here and it's six months, whatever, and it's not done, it's not done. It just gets to an end in my opinion. It's too important. The other thing I really want to cover on was quite interesting is the highway side. So I think I'm going back to 2010 when all this started and the we are that we all talk about a week in and now walks in Avenue bypass corner, what you like. I'm interested to know a little bit more about why it's a not on this at all. So it's not on this plan. It's being used by Hanwood Park as a mitigation against traffic. And yet it's not on this plan. So I don't know how we how we sort of square this one up. If you know that there are enough junctions already that are over prescribed again with too much traffic already before we even build on the next one. And I'm not again not sure. It's a little bit of information on that would be really helpful to understand how we can call that mitigation because it may never be built. So in terms of the we are not being shown on the plans, although junction 10 is on the plans arguably it doesn't need to be because both of those pieces of infrastructure require a standalone plan application. So that's why they're not necessarily on the plans for approval. In terms of the we are itself, it does remain the applicant's proposal as their mitigation. Obviously the trigger has changed and that's evidenced by their transport assessment. And that's obviously what we have to go by when we recommend to you what the trigger points would be for any any piece of infrastructure. We have to go back to the evidence. The applicant hasn't removed that from the scheme is still there. It's still an option. But as officers we've obviously set out in the report, the issues we see associated with that because it would be wrong with us not to present those to you within the report for you to to consider and to be aware of. And I think as officers we think it is right and proper that alternatives to we are considered. And it's really front-loading what an application for the we will need to do because it's likely that that would need to be accompanied by an environmental statement in itself because of the environmental impacts. And that requires you to look at alternatives. So we can't afford to get to a point where we get to a planning application. We're not considered the alternatives. And then an application can't go forward. We need to have a look at these issues now. We need to be proactive and be looking at that. And I think that's the right thing to do. But it hasn't been removed and the applicant is still committed to doing it if that is the right thing to take forward. It is right to look at those alternatives, but it's not been taken off the plans for any underhand reason. It's just that it's purely not. I say it's part of the scheme. It's mitigation. In the same way as if you required the Barton Road London Road scheme to come forward with many roundabouts. It's not shown on the plan, but it's not to say it couldn't be a mitigation scheme. So it does remain there, but obviously there are issues that we've had to obviously bring to your attention. I hope I've answered the question. Sorry. I've gone on a bit. Of course. It's slightly yes you have. Thank you, Louise. I appreciate that. Just coming back slightly on traffic really concerns me the way things have been going. And I think the monitoring management is a really good way moving forward with everything quite frankly. In my opinion, however, we already have traffic points, don't we? Where we've got junctions that are already having issues with a lot of traffic. So is there any way we as a council can ensure that they are either altered? Are they going to be monitored and managed in future? And if so, is there a way that we can have those changed to suit the amount of traffic at the later stage with all the additional houses coming? So what the transport assessment condition requires is the applicant to go back to basics tonight and have a look at all of the junctions that might need improvement. And to look at the impacts and then look out and then the mitigation, which at the moment would include the we are, but they could be alternatives. And there may be other offsite junction works that need to be done. And there's obviously a number in the consented development that were required. So it's right to review those as part of that process as well. And that includes the bottom road, London Road mini roundabout and obviously other junctions. But that would all need to be looked at within that transport assessment. And then that, the outcome of that would set you monitor and manage sort of baseline like. Thank you. Riley. Yeah, good evening. And thanks for the presentation. It was a lot like my fellow council. I learned no end out of that. So there's clearly a lot of work going into it. I think it's an exciting project, but it's one of many that we have in North North. So I just want to bring attention to a few things that concern me with it. Not that the project, but just the traffic situation that we have. It's two and a half thousand houses going out and desperate and off. We have, we have a town getting built the other side of Colby and Weld and hundreds and hundreds of houses and thousands of houses going out there. We have an extra thousand houses proposed for great Oakley and Oakley Vale. We have this housing development here as well. We have the Colby West housing development. We have the ice and bypass. We have things going on there with the rogue networks. But can you see, this seems to be like we're going to be clogging up our systems rounds here. And this development worries me a little bit for the access that's available. That's the first, that's the first thing. The second thing is you said at the beginning, you felt that the application was ready to come to committee. Well, like my other fellow councillors and members of the public, what does concern me is the inability for the I.C.B. National NHS and the developer to come to some sort of agreement on what the medical facility should look like on there. And they've made it perfectly clear. There was a response here from the developer on the 14th of March, 2024, highlighting what they're going to provide. Well, not really highlighting, just mentioned S106, S106, S106. Concerned about the money that the NHS were now asking for. On a letter from the NHS to this committee or to the council. On the one on the 10th of April, then again on the 24th of April, state clearly, and I'm just going to read a little bit at the bottom. I'll read this a little bit. With the absence of any defined commitment from the applicant to mitigate the harm of the proposals of existing health infrastructure, The thumb to your I.C.B. have no choice but to object to the application where they feel, whether they're the failure to deliver appropriate health. So it states quite clearly there, their views on where they should be going with this at the minute. So that's that. So that concerns me that does. And then the other thing I was going to say is, just in relation to the temporary provision of health care, there's trigger points being made for provision to put in place. That's it. Thank you. Just generally in terms of health and the provision. So currently within the master plan, there is a certain amount of land within the district centre set aside for a GP surgery health building. Because obviously that could have other facilities in there and outreach from hospital or community nurses and such like. So there is a commitment to deliver something on site. It's just how that's delivered. Now, obviously the I.C.B. want to know that now. But like all the other six applications, we need further negotiation on all of these things and we need to do that comprehensively and also need to look back at the existing 106 forecasting what's coming in. We need to do it in a planned way and looking at all the obligations. But I don't think that the developer is not committing to deliverance and it's just how that is delivered. And it's just looking at those options in more detail. And I think before we commence those negotiations, we need to know I think as officers and possibly as the developer to know. We're heading in the right direction, actually the application is supported before we spend six months. Negotiating on things that might be a development that no one wants. Hopefully not the case, but you know, so there is commitment there and there is provision. It's just how and the same goes for all of the obligations. This is not just the health obligation not being, you know, we need to look at all of these things and there's going to be months and months of negotiation on this. And then that will be brought back to you. And ultimately, if the health vision is not your satisfaction, then you can refuse the application in the 106 on that basis. But I'm hoping after that period of negotiation, we will get to an agreement with both parties. It's simply that we've got to a point with the application and then we've not continued that negotiation. I mean, I would say that we've had regular dialogue with both the ICB and the applicant often, you know, meetings together and sometimes separately the ICB and vice versa. So we have been having that regular dialogue with them on that. And on the temporary provision again, that's something that needs to be considered and how that would be delivered. The applicant has, I think, proposed the ICB using their current bill on Walton, Walton Lane as a possible, you know, interim solution or whether there's something else mobile on site, but those things are still to be negotiated and set as are the trigger points. So there's still a lot of a long way to go with, you know, the obligations, but we've reached a point where we think everything's acceptable. And now we need sort of the approval, if you like, to go forward with those negotiations, which is why we're seeking approval to come subject to the 106. Thank you, just a couple of minutes. Sorry to interrupt. Can I just add a couple of things. I just saw, sorry, I was just saying, yeah, thank you for that. To be honest with you, if I lived on that estate now, I'd be pushing beyond and opposed this through because, you know, all the amenities that it's going to come with it is looks really good, looks fantastic. We had a prize all in court, you know, people lived out there on their own for many, many years, so that started going through. What I would say, though, is it's not about what we think in relation to the health care. I'm making comments based on the literature that's in front of me, you know, and the experts. So, and the experts are saying that the worst possible outcome for all parties would be for the application to be approved on the understanding that a new health care facility be provided. Only for this to be watered down post committee. So, it's not, you know, I'm going to have to put my trust in the officers and the developer. This is what the health people are saying, the NHS and the ICP. So, I just wanted to sort of clarify that. The planning obligations will be coming back to us to agree as a committee, as officers have said. So, I think this is a really good report setting out the recommendations, which mean that the Section 106 is tightly controlled by us, is in the control of the local authority. Jasper, sorry, you wanted to come in. Sorry, I was just going to say, in summary, a number of members have made comments about how facilities on the area were listening to that. The applicants here, they're listening to that as well. And as Louise said, it's an ongoing process in terms of negotiations. And to give you that security, the 106 will come back to you so you can be satisfied whether that's been fulfilled. So, I just wanted to give you that process reassurance. So, the relevant people are here and they're listening to what the comments you've made. Thank you. Do any other members want to comment or ask questions? No? Therefore, we have a proposal. We've had a seconder for recommendation on page six of your report. That is, it is recommended that, that's through from A to E together with the additional condition that's shown in your update report in front of you today. It's on the second page of the update report you've received. So, as I say, we've had a, we've had a proposal, a seconder, and we'll take a vote on this now. All those in favor? Any against? Any abstentions? Council, all right. So, we just wanted to know whether you support the application recommendations. Can we take the vote? We'll take the vote again then. So, give you time to wake up. So, we'll go to the recommendations on page six together with the, so it's proposed. The recommendation to be granted that shown on page six from A to E together with the additional condition on the update report shown on the second page. So, we've had a proposal. We've had a seconder. Can I ask all those in favor? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. So, that has been carried unanimously. Thank you. And can I thank all the speakers as well for attending? Takes us on to agenda item seven. Is that six? No. Four. Any urgent items? No. No urgent items. Therefore, I close the meeting at 2009. Thank you, everybody, for attending. [BLANK_AUDIO]