Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application to erection 86 houses

(report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Grahame withdrew from the meeting)

  Plans, photographs, drawings and sample materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for a residential development comprising 86 dwellings on land allocated within the Leeds UPD (Review 2006) for employment use

  Members were informed that through a policy change to PPS4 requiring a sequential test to be carried out, given the supply of employment land within the city, this out of centre site could no longer be supported for employment use as evidenced by a refused planning application in 2008 which was subsequently dismissed on appeal.  Therefore alternative uses for the site could be considered

  A residential development was proposed with Officers being satisfied on the relationship between the proposed scheme and the existing adjacent office development, with further tree planting being included to address overlooking issues from the office building

  To mitigate against noise nuisance, acoustic fencing would be provided and for those properties closest to the motorway, enhanced double glazing and acoustically treated background ventilation would be provided.  Further information regarding noise nuisance was provided with it being stated that although plots 58, 59 and 60 at the south eastern corner of the site would still be affected by noise, this was not a reason for refusal of the application which could be sustained on appeal

  In respect of S106 contributions, it was stated that these were as set out in paragraph 9.34 of the report before Members, although the level of contributions exceeded what could be afforded by the applicant by £40,000 so requiring these to be reconsidered.  On affordable housing, a financial viability assessment had been undertaken within City Development which supported the developer’s case that the scheme would be unviable if any affordable housing provision was made

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the difficulties for Members who sat on Plans Panels in responding to briefings/consultation on applications in their wards

·  the appearance of the buildings; that these were not in keeping with the Colton area and that the materials shown had been used in another part of the city with disappointing results

·  that the absence of affordable housing and issues around the level of S106 contributions were unacceptable

·  that a Scrutiny Inquiry had concluded that S106 Agreements should be created in consultation with Ward Members and this should now be happening

·  concern at Officer comments that a reason for refusal on noise nuisance grounds could not be substantiated as only 3 out of 86 properties were affected

·  that the standard wording relating to local employment and training initiatives must be included

·  the need for Members to receive consistent advice as the case to use the site for residential use, despite its allocated use for employment, seemed to differ from that given on a site in Wetherby.  The Panel’s Lead Officer agreed to look into this and report back to Councillor Procter

Members discussed further the lack of affordable housing and viability

issues with the following points being raised:

·  the level of expertise within the Council to properly assess financial viability of developments and whether employing external consultants should be considered, with this being a possible future item to Joint Plans Panel

·  the need for Members to be provided with evidence of the viability assessments which if considered commercially sensitive, could be considered as exempt information

·  that the Asset Management Board would be aware of the Interim Affordable Housing Policy and Member discussions on this yet Panel was being asked to agree an application which contained no affordable housing

·  that having agreed an Interim Affordable Housing Policy it should be adhered to in all cases

·  that only 38 affordable housing units had been built since the Interim Policy had been brought in which would have little effect in addressing the housing needs of the city

·  that in cases where applicants did not own the land prior to development, the cost of any financial contributions were invariably deducted from the land purchase price

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  

i)  That whilst the principle of housing was accepted on the site,

that determination of the application be deferred to enable further discussions to take place with the applicant on:

·  the Section 106 contributions and affordable housing provision, in consultation with Ward Members

·  improvements to the design, especially the three storey elements; elevational treatments; spatial setting and narrowness

·  noise issues and for this to be addressed in the lay out

ii)  That the standard wording relating to local training and employment initiatives be included in the S106 Agreement

iii)  That information on the financial viability issues in this case be provided to the Panel when a further report is presented for determination of the application, with an appropriate officer from Asset Management being asked to attend to respond to any questions

iv)  That the issues raised about viability assessments be taken up initially by the Member Officer Working Group

(Following consideration of this matter, Councillor Grahame rejoined the meeting)