Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an application for development of 292 residential dwellings with open space and associated infrastructure

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented the report which set out the current position on an application for a residential development of 292 dwellings on a greenfield site to the east of Great North Road Micklefield.  It was noted that a site further north had been considered by Panel at its meeting on 11^th June 2015, for outline planning permission for 70 dwellings – Application 13/02771/FU - with approval of that application being deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

  Details of the proposed layout were outlined to Panel, with Members being informed that the green area in the centre of the site, which was recognised by the Planning Inspectorate as forming an important strategic gap between old and new Micklefield, would be retained in the proposals

  Issues relating to boundary treatments; road widening works at Garden Village and pedestrian connections into the site were also outlined

  The site would be built out by two housing developers, Barratt Homes and Persimmon Homes, with some proposed house types from both developers being presented to Members

  Reference was made to a successful, small 10 house development in close proximity to the site which Micklefield Parish Council had been involved in, particularly in respect of materials, with detailed advice also being provided on the current application through the representation submitted by the Parish Council

  Concerning highway works, the applicant, together with the applicants for the site to the north had worked together to put forward a highway solution for improvements to the junction of Church Lane and Barnsdale Road, which would cater for all of the current housing allocations in Micklefield

  In terms of education provision, colleagues in Childrens Services had been actively engaged and whilst the site of the local primary school was constrained, Childrens Services were of the view there was some scope for extending the provision within the current site in the short term, though acquisition of land to the south of the site was likely to be necessary for a more significant expansion in the longer term

  Affordable housing at a level of 15% would be provided on site, with this being pepper-potted around the site

  Despite the central area of green space being provided, the scheme remained deficient in respect of green space, with the developer needing to address this shortfall

  On travel issues, a request had been made for the provision of cycle facilities at Micklefield Station.  The applicants were also agreeable to the provision of residential Metrocards and travel initiatives through a Travel Plan

  The Head of Planning Services made reference to the Government’s published internal space standards and informed Panel that the Council was going through the process of adopting this for local development management purposes.  As such this was a material consideration although it only carried limited weight, though this would increase as the adoption process progressed.  In relation to this, Members were also informed of the likelihood that viability issues could be put forward by the applicants

  To assist in consideration of the scheme, the Head of Planning Services had undertaken a comparison exercise of the internal space standards of the standard house types being proposed on the site, compared to the Government’s internal space standards with many of the house types falling well below this.  Out of the 292 dwellings proposed for the site, 120 did not meet the Government’s space standards, with Members being informed that many of the smaller house types would comprise the affordable housing provision.  In the list of responses sought by Panel to various elements of the scheme, as set out in the submitted report, the issue of internal space standards was requested to be considered at point no. 2, for Members’ comments to be obtained

  The Head of Planning Services stated that this issue would be taken up in discussions with the volume house builders and that Planning Officers would be looking carefully at the proposed size of dwellings, as had Members when considering the size of proposed residential units on schemes around the city

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

·  the size of some of the gardens, with concerns these could be below or at the margins or what would be acceptable

·  that material weight should be attached to the Government’s internal space standard; that Leeds wanted to achieve decent homes standards and that on this site, a lower number of dwellings might be necessary to achieve this

·  housing mix; the absence of bungalows in the proposals and concerns that accommodation of older people whilst needed had to be sited close to facilities

·  importance of the design of the dwellings to reflect the area, rather than the standard, ubiquitous house types and the need for sufficient space to be provided to enable residents to live.  Members were informed that the proposals were being built to Building for Life standards

·  education provision; the vagueness of the possible expansion of the existing primary school closest to the site, particularly in view of the land being in third party ownership.  Members were informed that a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution would be sought as the provision would be offsite and would help pay for further expansion.  Colleagues in Childrens Services had engaged in discussions with the landowner to the south of the site and that any proposals could be brought back to Panel at the appropriate time

·  sustainability issues and the inadequacy of the current bus service and the need for improved transport links to be established.  Officers advised that the transport issues would be dealt with by CIL

·  CIL, how contributions were monitored to ensure the system worked and provided what was needed.  Concerns were also raised about the difficulty in forward planning of infrastructure through CIL contributions

·  the retention of the hedges

·  sewage and drainage issues.  Members were informed that Yorkshire Water in responding would have considered both the current and proposed situation and were satisfied with what was being proposed

·  how the new houses would integrate with the adjacent Council-owned Garden Village estate.  It was stated that as many links as possible were being created which would help with integration and access to facilities

·  the lack of local health provision and how the proposals could overcome local concerns in relation to this matter.  The Panel was advised that Public Health had been consulted and were of the view that individual GP surgeries would cope.  Officers were of the view that the size of the scheme was not large enough to warrant the establishment of a new GP surgery

·  that water butts should be provided to residents to help address any concerns about flooding

·  local concerns about the possible re-siting of Micklefield Station.  Members were informed this related to the proposed electrification of the line which had currently been put on hold

·  the impact of the scale of the proposals on the village of Micklefield, which was considered to be isolated and lacking in facilities and the need for a wider, strategic view to be taken of development in this area

In terms of affordable housing in general, an update on a recent case

in the High Court relating to provision of affordable housing on small schemes was requested, with the Panel’s Legal adviser outlining the main issues which related to national policy through written ministerial statements on the

non-requirement for affordable housing on residential developments for 10 dwellings or less and the vacant building credit and the discount to be given to developers if a regeneration scheme was undertaken on a brownfield site.  Following challenges by two Local Authorities in the South, the High Court deemed that the written ministerial statement relating to these two issues was unlawful as it overrode local, examined and approved policies.  Whilst the decision was not quashed, the High Court declared that the written ministerial statement was not a material planning consideration and no weight could be attached to it.  For Leeds, this meant that the Council’s Core Strategy position was now applicable again however to bring that in a further piece of work was needed, with this being prioritised to allow that policy to be applied

  The Chair requested that this issue be covered in a future planning training event

  On the specific issues raised in the submitted report for Members’ comments, the following responses were provided:

·  that on the approach to the layout of the development and design of the house types there were concerns about the lack of detailed design information in the presentation; that there was the need for the design of the dwellings to be appropriate to the village setting and that the use of magnesium limestone should be considered

·  on the issue of housing mix, proposed density and size of proposed dwellings, concerns were expressed about the house sizes of some of the dwellings and the size of some of the garden plots.  The work undertaken on internal space standards by the Head of Planning Services was welcomed and it was noted that Panel had on previous schemes made strong comments about the size of units which had been presented to them for approval

·  on the approach to greenspace and landscape issues, the Panel was not satisfied with the current offer; that insufficient green space was being provided and that the level provided must be policy compliant

·  on other issues raised by Members, the provision of water butts; concerns about the separation of the communal road; parking levels and the need for each house to have its own parking provision were noted as were design issues relating to the steep pitch of the roof of some dwellings and the importance of measures to facilitate the integration of the new community with the established community at Garden Village

The Panel’s Lead Officer referred to the positive comments made on

site by several Members in respect of the 10 house development close to the subject site.  It was felt that this success related to the detailing of these houses, with it being suggested this be used as a guide in terms of integrating the housing.  Members agreed to this approach

  RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made