Agenda item

Further to minute 55 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011 where Panel considered a position statement on a Reserved Matters application for a residential development comprising 132 houses and 19 flats, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer including information on the context of the application

(report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Procter joined the meeting)

  Further to minute 55 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011 where Members considered a position statement on a Reserved Matters application for a residential development comprising 132 houses and 19 flats, at Manston Lane LS15, part of the former Vickers tank factory site, Members considered the formal application

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which also included information on the context of the application in relation to surrounding developments and the delivery of the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR).  The Panel was informed that a revised layout plan had been submitted which was considered to be acceptable, therefore a change to the recommendation from defer and delegate to approval of the application was sought along with the deletion of conditions 5 and 9 which had been addressed in the revised plan.  Conditions 16 and 17 could also be deleted as they had been included on the outline application

  A typing error at paragraph 5.1 was corrected and it was confirmed that 260 units could be built across the two sites before the MLLR was in place

  In respect of affordable housing this would be at 25%; public open space locations had been secured as part of the application and that whilst Members had commented on the need for a play area to be included on the site, there was an agreement not to provide this and £62k had been secured by a S106 Agreement for off-site provision

  The various off-site highway measures agreed on the outline application and included in the report were referred to

  In terms of the provision of a railway station, this was beyond the remit of the application under consideration and that from discussions which had taken place, Metro appeared to favour improvements at Micklefield Station rather than the provision of a new station

  The application had generated some representations although many of these focussed on the highway implications of the scheme and the MLLR which were not part of the considerations for this application

  To address Members’ concerns about possible ransom strips, a condition had been included to ensure that proposed street connections to land east of the site would be constructed up to the boundary

  Details of the house types were provided which would comprise a mix of types, predominantly family housing although some flats had been included in the scheme

  Members were informed that a separate application would be submitted for the detailed landscaping

  Officers recommended approval of the application to the Panel

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  the traffic congestion in the area which would be exacerbated by this development

·  the lack of school places in the area in view of the family housing being proposed and the level of education contributions to accommodate these children in local schools

·  that the contributions agreed on an outline application might not reflect the needs at the time if the development was delayed, with concerns being raised that this issue should be considered on this site and be discussed at a future Joint Plans Panel meeting

·  concerns that Officers were seeking to amend the recommendation to approve, without having consulted Ward Members on the revised layout plans and especially in view of the controversial nature of the application

·  that further assurances were needed on matters relating to street lighting, especially the community safety aspect of this, boundary treatments, drainage, flooding – including the response from the Environment Agency to the proposals -  and dealing with the coal under the site.  On this matter, Members were advised that rather than extracting the coal, the site would be capped, with the Chair allowing a member of the applicant’s team to provide factual information on the investigations which had taken place

·  that samples of the proposed materials should be provided together with details of the sustainability and weathering of the timber

·  that in view of the comments made by the applicant’s agent on timescales, that a 3 year permission would be needed rather than 5 years.  Officers advised that the timescales required submission of Reserved Matters within 3 years and then implementation within 2 years

·  the need to ensure a proper impact study had been carried out and proper assessments made by Highways of the traffic issues associated with the scheme

·  concerns that the access to the site was contrived and need further consideration

·  the likelihood of the developer seeking a reduction in the level of affordable housing at a later date.  Members were informed that the S106 Agreement had been signed which included delivery of affordable housing at 25% and that any alterations to this would necessitate a further application being submitted

·   that the developer’s intention was to create a residential development where people would remain and move up the housing ladder but that the design of the houses undermined this objective

·  that the design of the properties needed to be reconsidered and should be of a quality akin to those being built by this developer in the North West of the city

·  concerns about the siting of the flats which seemed to be in a less prominent position on the site; that further details of the flats were needed, whether there were any flats over garages and whether it was the intention to locate the affordable housing in the flats

·  the methodology used by Officers to calculate planning contributions in view of the sums of money obtained by a neighbouring authority from developments

·  that the issues raised at the previous meeting had not been addressed; the need for a masterplan; for this to be shared with Members and consideration being given to seeking planning contributions progressively

·  that details of the negotiations between Officers and developers should be provided

·  that there were two colonies of Great Crested Newts on the site and this had to be taken into account

Whilst noting Members’ concerns, particularly on the highways issues,

the Head of Planning Services reminded the Panel that the application before it was for Reserved Matters and that issues addressed in the outline application could not be revisited and that this included the provision of the MLLR

  In terms of the masterplan, colleagues in Asset Management were undertaking discussions and that information on this could be provided

  Discussions continued on the application and the need to consider all the information Members felt was necessary

  Members considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED –

i) That Ward Members be consulted on the revisions to the Reserved Matters application

ii)That determination of the application be deferred to enable a meeting with Panel Members, the Director of City Development and the Acting Chief Asset Management Officer to take place to discuss bringing about a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the delivery of development within the area and the delivery of the MLLR – this meeting to take place before reporting the application back to Panel

iii) That sample materials be obtained and provided when the application is re-presented to Panel and that issues relating to drainage/flooding, lighting, fencing, affordable housing, school places provision, the sustainability of the site and clarification of the education contribution be included in the report, together with a position statement on the progress on master planning of the wider area and details of the negotiations undertaken so far, especially regarding the delivery of the MLLR

iv) That Councillor Parker be briefed by Officers on discussions regarding the provision of a rail halt