Agenda item

The purpose of the report is to update the Cabinet Member on the potential yield of identified potential development sites in Milton.

RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet Member approves the matrix of housing numbers in section 3 to be used for the basis of future planning policy and development management decisions.

(TAKE IN REPORT)

The City Development Manager introduced the report which updated the Cabinet Member on the potential yield of identified potential development sites in Milton.  She said that the numbers of houses that can be accommodated on the sites in question is potentially lower than the figures shown in the August 2014 consultation document. She advised that given the degree of change from the August 2014 figures, it is considered appropriate to base future planning policy and development decisions on the revised figures set out at paragraph 3.5 of the report, but stressed that the numbers are draft only.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration and Economic Development said he wished to change the recommendation in the report so that it read

"The Cabinet Member is recommended to approve the matrix of housing numbers in section 3 of the report to inform the Management Framework"

The Cabinet Member advised that a deputation request had been made by Janice Burkinshaw and invited her to speak.  She expressed concerns

·         about the absence of notice

·         about reference to a NET figure as she understood that to mean "not gross" and therefore perhaps that meant "at least" in this context

·         about reference to 110 NET University of Langstone Campus dwellings as this implies this is sustainable and she is still trying to find out whether or not this has been adopted in the Portsmouth Plan

·         about the timing of this report given its proximity to the establishment of a Neighbourhood Planning Forum that had not yet met.

The Cabinet Member thanked Janice Burkinshaw for her deputation.

The City Development Manager said that the numbers referred to were not set in stone but are a working assumption and the Cabinet Member advised that a specific number was necessary for the first planning application.

The timing of the report was because its author, David Hayward, was leaving the City Council imminently.  Going forward, the City Development Manager expressed her wish that the City Council and the Neighbourhood Planning Forum should establish a  good working relationship and would look at ways to enable this to happen.  This could lead to mutually desired outcomes such as creating wildlife habitats where appropriate. 

During discussion, it was confirmed that the constraints referred to in paragraph 3.4 resulted from the NHS' submission of its outline planning application and resulted in the lower potential yield.

The Cabinet Member for PRED said that the impact on trees and the chapel had to be considered but .it was vital to consider the traffic impact and that would be assessed later in the process.

A query was raised in regard to phase 2.  Whilst the bulk of the development would be on the site of the main building, what about the current outbuildings? Would there be building on the footprint if these were demolished?   Mr Hayward said that that element did not form part of the current calculations. In any event the numbers mentioned in the report are a working assumption.

.DECISION:

That the Cabinet Member approved the matrix of housing numbers in section 3 of the report to inform the Management Framework.