Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning on the following applications:

14/05481/OT – Outline application for residential development (maximum 300 units) together with other uses and revised landscaping – Northern development plots – land south of railway line Thorpe Park

14/05483/FU – Variation of condition 4 (floor space) of approval 12/03886/OT to read ‘ the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the total quantum of developments as listed below (all gross external areas) B1 – 83,615sqm, A1 (food store) – 9,000sqm, A1 not within the food store – 9,000sqm (A2, A3, A4 and A5 – 4,200sqm, C1, D1 and D2 – 16,340sqm of which no more than 14,050sqm shall be in the C1 hote use and 2,290sqm shall be in the D2 gym use

14/05484/COND – Revised masterplan relating to the approved application 12/03886/OT for a major missed use development at Thorpe Park

(report attached)

  Further to minute 86 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 20^th November 2014, where Panel received a position statement on proposals for a residential and mixed use development at Thorpe Park, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on the formal applications.  It was noted that application 14/05481/OT was for determination and not for consideration as a position statement as set out in error on the report before Panel.  Members were also informed that application 14/05484/COND had been withdrawn as this was not now required as the matter would be addressed by a specific condition linking the two applications

  Plans and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Reference was made to the Members site visit to a residential development in York which had taken place in late December, which had proved useful, with both positive and negative aspects of that scheme being noted

  Details of the revised S106 agreement were outlined, to reflect the housing element of the scheme now being proposed

  An omission at paragraph 2.4 of the submitted report was corrected, with Members being informed that a transport assessment had been submitted and assessed.  On condition no. 5, the application reference should read 14/05483/FU and if minded to approve the proposals, an additional condition was proposed on the outline application to cover details of the drainage pond and provision of updated surveys

  The Panel heard representations on behalf of an objector who outlined concerns which included:

·  the timescale for the necessary works, particularly in view of the application needing to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan

·  the proposed housing on the site

·  the trigger mechanisms

·  the existence of coal on the site; the possible extraction of this and the lack of consultation with the local community on this and that the application was ultra vires and could prompt a judicial review

·  the drainage ponds and the depths of these leading to safety concerns

·  the part of the site allocated for a supermarket, with concerns that due to the changing nature of this retail sector, further housing could be introduced into the scheme

The Panel then heard representations on behalf of the applicant, with

information provided about the proposals, which included:

·  the procedure needing to be followed as the application was a departure from the Development Plan

·  the bridge agreement with Network Rail and that the applicant was close to securing an agreement which would provide an additional 3 years for this work to be undertaken

·  that information had been provided about the ponds and how they would be managed

·  the introduction of housing into the site and the delivery of the MLLR

·  that a sign off of 2017 was still being worked towards and that consideration could be given to including a timetable for the works in the S106 agreement, subject to further discussions with Officers and Legal representatives, in order ease local concerns about the development

The Panel discussed the applications and commented on the following

matters:

·  an issue raised by the objector regarding the legality of the application.  The Panel’s legal representative stated this related to the extraction of coal and that the application was considered to be lawful

·  the lessons learned from the site visit to the Derwenthorpe development in York.  Members were informed that the design of the scheme at Thorpe Park was of a better quality and that the Leeds Standard would be used to set the minimum standards and guide the process.  It was also stated that the residential element of the scheme would not be the usual volume house builders development

·  the delivery of the MLLR and the need for a fixed date for this to be provided

·  education provision and the need for reports to make reference to school provision where this was an issue.  The Chief Planning Officer advised that the long-term position in respect of education provision was being protected through the site allocations process and that in the short-term, there was scope for temporary expansion

·  detailed design issues of the layout, with Members being informed these matters would be dealt with as part of the Reserved Matters application

·  the need for sufficient parking to be provided to avoid on-street parking

·  an acceptance that a large scale office park on the site in the current market would not be feasible and that the proposed mixed use, including housing was a sensible use of the site and the inclusion of an additional condition linking the two applications

The Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approve to the Chief Planning

Officer, subject to referral of the two planning applications to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government as departures from the Statutory Development Plan, and for consultation under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) ( England) Direction 2009, and in respect of 14/05481/OT, subject to conditions to cover those matters outlined in the submitted report, additional conditions in respect of the drainage ponds and provision of updated surveys (and any other conditions which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a S106 agreement to cover the matters set out in the submitted report (and consequential variations of the existing S106 agreement in respect of application 12/03886/OT, to reflect the introduction of housing, amended MLLR layout and amended trigger points)  To also delegate to the Chief Planning Officer any changes required to conditions of application 14/05483/FU to bring it in to line with the current proposal and circumstances and referral of application 14/05483/FU to the Secretary of State as a departture

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed before 2^nd April 2015, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer