Agenda item

Further to minute 120 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 29^th January 2015, where Panel considered a position statement on an outline application for means of access and erection of residential development (circa 2000 dwellings), retail, health centre, community centre and primary school development, with associated drainage and landscaping, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking determination of the formal application

(report attached)

  Further to minute 120 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 29^th January 2015, where Panel considered a position statement on an outline application for a major, residential-led development on the Northern Quadrant of the East Leeds Extension, Members considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application.  Appended to the report were minutes of the City Plans Panel’s previous discussions on the proposals, together with details of the S106 proposals and the delivery triggers for the payment of the planning contributions.  An exempt appendix which contained financial information was also appended to the report

  Plans, drawings, photographs and a schedule setting out the key milestones of the proposals were displayed at the meeting.  It was noted that Members had last visited the site ahead of the meeting on 29^th January 2015

  Officers presented the report and outlined the main issues in respect of:

·  East Leeds Orbital Route (ELOR) – that the Council had obtained funding for the whole of ELOR from the West Yorkshire Transport Fund; that it was anticipated that the road would be open by 2021 and that if the application was approved, only 250 dwellings could be constructed on the site by 2021

·  affordable housing – that the policy requirement was for 15% affordable housing; that Members had required a higher level; that now 12% affordable housing had been guaranteed through a correction in the cost of ELOR; funding proposed for Metrocards being redirected, in line with Members’ comments at the meeting in January 2015; funding from off-site public transport works and a further contribution from the developers of £557,371.  In addition to this, there was provision for further excesses through the roof tax payments which could take the level of affordable housing to be achieved on the site to 14%

·  highways – that a key concern raised in the consultation process had been the proposed closure of Red Hall Lane at the eastern end and that a sum of money had been put aside to address any unforeseen highway impacts arising from this closure, as well as unforeseen impacts elsewhere arising from the development

·  the split between the amount of social rented dwellings and sub market dwellings in the affordable housing provision; in a 40/60 split; that the Core Strategy reversed these amounts however a more pragmatic approach was being proposed to this site and that 60% submarket and 40% social rent was being recommended to Panel

·  that in the event Panel was minded to approve the scheme and that the S106 had not been signed before 6^th April, when CIL came into effect, there were implications for the scheme under the CIL regulations

The Panel then heard from an objector who was representing local

residents and who set out local concerns about the scheme which included:

·  the sustainability of the development

·  the design of ELOR

·  the extent of the greenspace provision

·  proposed road closures

·  the impact of increased traffic in the area

·  the location of the Country Park

The Panel then heard from representatives of the applicant who

provided information which included:

·  the quantum of open space being provided

·  that the location of the Country Park was appropriate and accessible

·  that ELOR would lead to environmental enhancements

·  that sustainable transport measures were being provided

In response to questions from the Panel it was confirmed:

·  that the segregated cycling facilities formed part of ELOR and would be delivered alongside the road

·  that if approval was granted it was hoped that one of the house builders could start on site within a year

·  that the first components to be provided would be the roundabouts which would be in place prior to house building commencing

·  that the Country Park would form part of a wider Council strategy to create a green edge around the east of the City; that it would provide amenity for every resident on the site; was within walking distance and to re-site the Country Park to the west side of ELOR would reduce the number of dwellings delivered on site

·  that, subject to outline approval of the whole site, a planning application for the Country Park was likely to be submitted in 2016

·  that the local centre would be marketed prior to it being built; that it would not comprise solely of retail but could include accommodation for older people, as well as health and community facilities , however a critical mass of around 500 people was needed initially

At this point, having resolved to consider the financial viability

information in private, the public withdrew from the meeting

  A representative of Sanderson Weatherall, who had been engaged by the Council to independently assess the financial viability appraisal submitted by the applicant was in attendance and in addition to presenting his appraisal responded along with Officers to comments and questions from the Panel

  The main areas of discussion related to:

·  land values

·  profit levels

·  the level of affordable housing being offered

·  the cost of ELOR

·  the level of the roof tax and how this figure had been arrived at

·  the collection of the roof tax and implications for using those contributions which were collected late in the development

·  building costs and that further information sought from one of the proposed house builders had not been provided

·  the viability of the scheme if it complied with all policy requirements

At this point, the public were readmitted to the meeting

The Panel discussed the application, with the key issues being raised

relating to:

·  the housing mix as set out in the submitted report and whether this did comply with the Core Strategy.  Members were informed that the housing mix would form part of the assessment of Reserved Matters, if the scheme was granted outline approval.  The Executive Member for Neighourhoods, Planning and Personnel, sought an amendment to details of the housing mix in the submitted report, for the avoidance of doubt

·  education provision; concerns that insufficient details had been provided; the need to properly consider secondary education provision, particularly due to the high number of pupils living in the Inner East area who were transported daily to high schools in Wetherby and Boston Spa and the cost implications of this.  Concerns were also raised about primary provision.  It was reported that Ward Members were supportive of off-site provision at the start of the development but that this must be in the right location and subject to consultation with Ward Members

·  highways issues and concerns about the traffic implications for areas around the site during the construction process and prior to the provision of ELOR

·  greenspace provision; where the aspiration of a Country Park had emanated from; that due to its location it would only benefit people living on the eastern most part of the site and that further work was required in respect of the landscape buffer to be provided along the northern edge of the site.  It was accepted at this late stage why further consideration of the siting of the Country Park would be problematic, however if outline approval was granted, safe and accessible routes to the Country Park must be an important factor when considering Reserved Matters applications

·  viability issues and that the full policy requirements should be met, with 15% affordable housing being provided; that this should be achievable and that developers had already benefitted from a reduction in the affordable housing levels as part of this site had originally been in the 35% zone

·  the high level of consultation by the developers on this scheme and the need for this to be formalised through the process

·  the provision of ELOR; that whilst developers had indicated at appeal they could provide this, they had not done so and that the Council were now promoting this, with a letter of comfort being provided by the Council to give certainty

·  that a mixed-use local centre was required which would include much needed health facilities

·  the need to ensure the sum set aside for local traffic re-routing was sufficient

·  the importance of the housing mix

·  the need for timescales to be provided in respect of the roof tax payments and for Ward Members to be involved

·  that at the more detailed stages of the planning process, information on local traffic movements; build out rates;  construction methodology and the proportion of older people’s accommodation would need to be provided

·  provision of water butts, particularly in view of comments by Yorkshire Water about sewer capacity and that Cock Beck was known to flood.  Officers advised that this would be picked up at Reserved Matters stage

·  the need for all parties to work together to see if reductions could be made to the cost of ELOR which could lead to increased affordable housing

The Panel considered how to proceed

It was felt that the recommendation within the submitted report was at

variance with Members’ views

  A suggestion was made for further information to be provided to Members of the mechanism for reaching a level of 15% affordable housing in due course and that if this could not be agreed, the matter should be referred back to Panel.  The impending implementation of CIL was noted, as was Members’ views that 15% affordable housing was required on this site and that an amendment to the recommendation to specify 15% affordable housing was proposed and supported

  The Head of Planning Services and the Panel’s legal adviser sought clarification of what was being proposed, for the avoidance of doubt

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer on the grounds set out in the submitted report, subject to an amendment to the affordable housing provision which should be on-site at a guaranteed level of 15%, in a 60/40 split and in the event this could not be agreed upon, that a further report be submitted to Panel and to note this could be after 6^th April when the CIL regulations would come into force