Agenda item

To receive and consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a residential development of 272 houses with associated roads and infrastructure

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day which had included viewing a site at Bierley in Bradford, which had been developed by the same applicant

  Officers presented a report which set out the current position in respect of an application for a major residential scheme on a large, greenfield site, situated on the edge of Leeds.    Members were informed that the site had been allocated for employment land since 1996 but in the Site Allocation Plan, Issues and Options, housing use was proposed

  Details of the housing types were outlined, with concerns being expressed about some of the design elements of these

  A landscaped buffer was included in the scheme, however this was partly on land not within the applicant’s ownership and it was the view of Officers that such a buffer should be sited on land owned by the applicant

  In terms of planning contributions, no affordable housing was being proposed and the extent of the greenspace contribution offered was 36% of that required by policy.  A possible method of securing some funds towards affordable housing and additional greenspace on the site was through a S106 Agreement whereby if the houses sold for higher than was in the submitted financial viability assessment, this excess could be clawed back and used for these purposes

  At this point the public were asked to withdraw from the meeting to enable the Panel to consider the financial viability information in private

  The Panel considered the information in the exempt appendix, with the main issues raised relating to:

·  land values

·  projected sale price for the houses

·  profit levels

·  likely build costs and concerns about the quality of the houses

·  the definition of an affordable home

Following these discussions, the Chair invited the public to resume

their seats in the meeting

Members discussed the proposals with concerns being raised about the absence of affordable housing provision; the low level of greenspace being proposed; the need for the buffer to be on land in the applicant’s ownership; that the former railway land should be included so as not to leave an undevelopable area; design issues which included poor fencing; the extent of tarmac; size of garages; siting of car parking and the need for useable areas of greenspace

  In respect of education and recreation contributions, Officers were asked to note the comments of Bradford Council, as set out in the submitted report and to consider these when dealing with residential applications in areas such as Menston

  In relation to the specific questions posed to Members in the submitted report, the following responses were provided

·  that Members support the principle of residential development

·  that Members did not agree that the benefits of the scheme outweighed concerns which related to the layout and design of the scheme

·  that Members did not accept the nil provision of affordable housing on the site.  In respect of a S106 including affordable housing only if the properties sold for higher prices than those forecasted in the submitted financial appraisal, this was an area for further discussions between Officers and the applicant

·  that a reduction in on-site greenspace provision might be considered but not as large as that being proposed

·  that the 10m landscaping buffer was adequate and needed to be provided on land within the ownership of the applicant

It was noted that the target date for determination of the formal application was 20^th April 2015.  A representative of the applicant was in attendance and was invited by the Chair to address the Panel on the issue of whether an extension of time could be agreed to for determination of the application and also on the issue of affordable housing provision

Members were informed by the applicant’s representative that the low cost housing being provided in this scheme met the definition in the NPPF of affordable housing; that there was no way forward of reaching agreement on this, although the applicant might consider a re-test at a later date to demonstrate the scheme remained unviable if the usual planning contributions were made.  The applicant’s representative also stated that CIL was being paid in full and made reference to the comments made about the house types

Having considered these comments, the Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate detailed reasons for refusal of the application to the Chief Planning Officer on the following grounds:

·  lack of affordable housing

·  deficiency in the level of public open space on the site

·  concerns about the N24 planting

·  design concerns, including plot layout; car parking, fencing and landscaping