Agenda item

Further to minute 176 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 10^th April 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for an outline application for the residential development of circa 200 dwellings and associated landscaping to consider the formal application

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Towler withdrew from the meeting

  Further to minute 176 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 10^th April 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for an outline application for the residential development of circa 200 dwellings and associated landscaping, the Panel considered the formal application.  A supplementary report which contained further information on the issue of drainage and addressed concerns raised about the application by the local MP, was also considered

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Officers presented the report and outlined the application, which was for outline permission for a residential development on a site designated as a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site, with all matters reserved except for the access

  The application was being recommended for refusal, with proposed reasons for refusal being included in the report before Panel

  Technical Officers were in attendance and provided further information on the soil conditions, drainage and flooding issues.  In terms of drainage, the applicant had recently provided additional information, sought by the Council, and that the proposals were felt, by Officers, to provide a satisfactory means of drainage and could help with the existing drainage problems experienced on the adjacent development

  Seven additional representations were reported, including one from Greg Mulholland MP, although these raised no new issues.  Comments on the revised drainage proposals were awaited from Yorkshire Water; the Environment Agency had indicated they had no further comments and Network Rail had requested a condition in respect of monitoring the drainage works on their structure

Although Officers were of the view that the site could be developed if it could be drained, with Members accepting this in principle at the City Plans Panel meeting held on 10^th April 2014, the application was being recommended for refusal on the basis of the quantum of development; the impact on the residents of Moseley Wood Rise and that a secondary access was not proposed

Members were informed that a smaller development on the site would be brought to the December Panel for consideration

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  drainage; the elaborate proposals for the site; the importance of differentiating between flooding and waterlogging and the maintenance of drains across the development

·  the S106 agreement; whether there was any indication the requirements would not be met and that the absence of a signed S106 Agreement as a reason for refusal could be considered to be spurious

·  whether any development of the site could be accepted

·  sustainability issues, particularly the lack of school places and health facilities; that this was an issue citywide and was not being addressed in the proposals being presented to Plans Panels.  The Chief Planning Officer acknowledged the points being made and accepted that on this site, the issue of sustainability was a balanced one and took into account several factors.  However in relation to education issues, Children’s Services had been consulted on the proposals and had sought contributions towards education provision, therefore a reason for refusal on this ground could not be substantiated

·  the fact that the site did not meet the sustainability criteria

·  ecology issues.  Members were informed there were no ecology issues associated with the site

The Panel considered how to proceed.  On the issue of sustainability a

discussion took place, with initially, a suggestion being made to amend the third reason for refusal to include sustainability.  A fourth reason for refusal on the grounds that the site was unsustainable was proposed and seconded but did not have majority support

  RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reasons:

  1 The indicative masterplan relies on one point of vehicular access into and out of the site, this is poor urban design and fails to take the opportunities available to maximize the connections to and from the site to spread the impact of traffic, create connected streets and integrate fully a new development within an existing community to the detriment of sustainable development.  This is contrary to policy P10 of the Core Strategy and the guidance contained within the Neighbourhoods for Living SPG

  2 The proposed principal means of access to and from the site would result in significant traffic movements (both vehicular and pedestrian) going past properties of the residents of Moseley Wood Rise which would result in harm to the living conditions of the residents on Moseley Wood Rise contrary to policy P10 criteria (i) and (iii) of the Core Strategy and the guidance in the Neighbourhoods for Living SPG which seeks to maximise connections to spread the impacts of traffic rather than concentrating it

  3 In the absence of a completed Section 106 Agreement to provide for affordable housing, public open space, education, off site highways works, public transport and travel planning matters, the development is contrary to policies ID22 of the approved Core Strategy and Supplementary Planning Documents Travel Plan, Public Transport Development Contributions and Supplementary Planning Guidance’s 4 and 11 relating to Green Space and Education