Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of residential development, landscaping, open space and incorporating associated new access (layout, appearance, landscaping and scale reserved).  The proposals were previously considered by City Plans Panel as a position statement at its meeting held on 21^st November 2013 (minute 110 refers)

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development, landscaping, open space and new access, with all other matters reserved, on a greenfield site, allocated in the UDP Review for housing at Great North Road Micklefield.  A position statement on the proposals had been considered by City Plans Panel on 21^st November 2013

  Details of the access arrangements; the existing boundary treatments of the site and the relationship of the site to the adjacent newly built dwellings were highlighted.  Members were informed that the small area of Green Belt land sited between the housing allocation site and the A1(M) was being proposed by the applicant to be incorporated into the red line boundary to provide additional green space.  As this was a departure from the Development Plan, the application would require re-advertisement

  In terms of highways issues, the applicant had been asked to consider a solution which improved the existing junction at Barnsdale Road and Church Lane, with the proposals being put forward to widen Barnsdale Road and introduce a right hand turning lane into Church Lane.  This was considered to be acceptable to Highway Officers

  In terms of the Grade II Listed mile stone, Members were informed this was outside of the development area and would not be affected by the proposals although a condition to protect it during the works was proposed

  The proposals would involve tree loss, with this being outlined in the submitted report.  Members were informed that most of the trees to be removed were classed as category C, i.e. trees of low quality or young trees, although some category B trees, i.e. trees of moderate quality or value, would be affected.  It was stated that this tree loss was unavoidable as the housing allocation had to be delivered

  Objections had been received to the proposals, with particular concerns relating to the highways scheme.  Although an alternative roundabout solution had been proposed, this would also impact on trees.  Receipt of two further representations was reported, these raising issues relating to highways and flooding.  Members were informed that Highways Officers were satisfied with the Stage 1 Safety Audit which had been undertaken on the proposed highway works.  In respect of flood risk management, mitigation measures could be installed, with these being dealt with at the detailed design stage

  Details of the planning obligations were provided, which would include affordable housing at 15%

  In view of the need to re-advertise the application, Members were informed of a revision to the wording of the recommendation to accommodate this

  The Panel then heard representations from two objectors who, with agreement of the Chair were on this occasion, given two minutes each to address Members

  The concerns relating to the proposals were outlined and included:

·  drainage issues

·  school provision, particularly in view of the lack of land to expand the local primary school

·  highways safety and concerns with the proposed junction layout

·  that the application should be deferred for consideration of alternative highways solutions

The Panel then heard from a representative of the developer who

provided information on the highways issues, which included:

·  the design of the highways proposals which had been approved and reviewed by the Council

·  that an independent Stage 1 Safety Audit had been carried out and accepted by Highways Officers

·  the proposals provided betterment to existing and future road users

·  that Members had all the information they required to consider the proposals

In response to queries regarding education provision and drainage, the

Chair invited the developer to respond.  In terms of education provision, the developer informed Members he was unable to respond on this point.  Concerning drainage and recent ponding which had occurred on part of the site, that this could be mitigated by installing an infiltration trench/land drainage system between the new development and the existing houses on Great North Road

  The Panel discussed the application, with the main issues being raised relating to:

·  highways.  The Transport Development Services Manager advised that much work had been undertaken in considering the proposed solution.  The solution was tight and some of the standards were minimum and whilst other solutions might be available, this was what had been submitted and was considered to be acceptable and safe, with an independent Stage 1 Safety Audit having been undertaken and deemed acceptable

·  education provision and concerns about the feasibility of this if land for expansion was not available.  Members were informed that regarding the expansion of the primary school, a financial contribution for this would normally have been required prior to the adoption of CIL but this type of infrastructure improvement would now be delivered through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  For clarity, the Chief Planning Officer stated that the need for the expansion of the local primary school related to the whole housing allocation site, with the extent of this being highlighted on the plan, for Members’ information

·  the green space being provided; the siting of the children’s play area; (as indicated on the allocation wide masterplan), that providing green space within the Green Belt, might in this case be acceptable in view of the narrowness of the Green Belt at this point, however it was felt there was a need for justification of this course of action, to guard against similar proposals elsewhere

·  the need to co-ordinate proposals across a wider area and that the application before Panel could be considered as premature

The Chief Planning Officer advised the Panel that in respect of the

highways issues which had been raised, these had been addressed.  On the issue of green space, there was a justification for the proposed incorporation of a narrow strip of Green Belt land and that a larger amount of green space was being provided which was acceptable.  Finally on the primary school expansion, the financial contribution would be picked up by CIL and that future education provision would need to be picked up with other developers with sites near to the existing primary school.  However, it was for Children’s Services to advise what provision was needed and where this should be sited.

  The Chief Planning Officer stated he did not consider the application to be premature

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the revised red line boundary and re-advertisement of the application as a Departure from the Development Plan; subject to no new, material planning considerations being raised as part of that re-advertisement process and subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report; an additional condition to cover the protection of the Listed mile stone on Barnsdale Road during the construction work (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following:

·  affordable housing – 15% (with a 60% social rent and 40% submarket split)

·  public open space on site of the size and locations set out on the revised masterplan

·  improvements to bus stop 24237 at a cost of £10,000

·  travel plan, including a monitoring fee of £2,500 and £1,000 contribution for cycle/scooter storage at the primary school

·  residential Metrocards (bus and rail) at a cost of £605.00 per dwelling

·  employment and training initiatives (applies to the construction of the development)

In the circumstances where the S106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

  During consideration of this matter, Councillor J Procter took his seat in the meeting