Agenda item

 To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a reserved matters application for 299 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters application for 299 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  E-mail representations from Ward Members with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

o  Objections to the principal of development and that the site was safeguarded for future development.

o  Traffic issues – roads not being wide enough, parking, lack of footpaths, disability access

o  Housing mix – not enough two bedroom houses and clustering of affordable housing

o  Properties that were sized below national space standards

·  There were two public rights of way through the site.  These would be maintained and diverted where necessary.

·  Affordable housing was to be located to the west of the site.  There would be 45 units that met policy standards.

·  There would be on site public open space.

·  An area of land would be reserved for the provision of a two form entry primary school.

·  Details of house types were shown.  Some did fall below space standards, in particular the affordable units.

·  The proposals would make a contribution to meeting housing targets.

·  In response to Ward Members’ concerns, the following was reported:

o  Affordable housing was grouped together to make it more attractive to and more manageable for registered social landlords

o  There should not be any need for on street parking as all properties would have driveways and/or garages.

o  The original proposals had been revised to remove ginnels.

o  There would be standard two metre wide footpaths across the site.

o  Access had been amended to provide a curved roadway in to the site.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

A local resident and Ward Member addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  The site was a historic breaking space between East and West Ardsley.

·  The proposals would have an impact on vulnerable people whose homes bordered the site.

·  The site was a safeguarded space.

·  Impact on infrastructure – pressure on local GP surgery and schools.

·  Traffic – East Ardsley was situated between two motorways and was already having problems with traffic flow at peak times.

·  Reduced housing targets and whether this site should have a percentage downturn to match these.

·  Impact of the number of houses and problems with traffic had not been previously considered.

·  Problems with parking at other similar recent developments.

·  Access to the school site would cause further traffic problems.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The site was considered to be a sustainable location for housing development.

·  The proposed number of houses and access to the site was considered to be acceptable.

·  There would be 15% affordable housing and 2 hectares of open space.

·  The housing mix met local market demand.

·  Consultation had been undertaken with local residents.

·  Highways and traffic had been considered at the appeal of the outline application.  There would be improvements to pedestrian crossings.

·  The proposals constituted a sustainable development and there would be Community Infrastructure Levy contributions towards infrastructure provision.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  120 of the housing units did not meet space standards.  This included all of the affordable housing units..

o  All properties would be sold on a freehold basis.

o  The open space was situated to keep the break between East and West Ardsley and also to separate from the listed church building.

In response to comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  There was no policy with regard to size standards.

·  The inspector had approved the outline planning permission without the school development.

·  Concern regarding sustainability.

·  Further discussion regarding the location of open space on the site.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow for further negotiations with the application in respect of:

·  The layout of the development

·  The pepper potting of the affordable housing units

·  To seek greater compliance with the space standards

The application to be reported back to Panel for determination.