Agenda item

Application 11/03814/FU - 69 houses on land opposite Highcroft and Hillside - Selby Road Garforth LS25 - Position statement

To consider a position statement by the Chief Planning Officer on proposals for the erection of 69 houses

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the position on proposals for a residential development on land off Selby Road Garforth LS25.  A previous application for 78 houses on the site had been refused in January 2009 as the Council felt the application was premature and there were outstanding issues relating to highways and flooding.  This decision was appealed and the appeal was upheld by the Inspector.  The approved S106 Agreement made provision for 30% affordable housing on the site

Since the appeal decision the Council’s policy on affordable housing had changed with the introduction of the Interim Affordable Housing Policy which set the level of provision at 15%, time limited to 2 years to ensure that permissions were implemented reasonably quickly.  A Reserved Matters application for 70 houses on the site had been withdrawn in October 2011 and the applicant had subsequently submitted a full planning application on the basis of affordable housing provision of 15%

The development was proposed to be phased, with work on the first phase to commence in January 2012 which would deliver 22 private units and all of the affordable housing, i.e. 10 units.  In 2013, 30 units would be built with the remaining 7 units being constructed in 2014, with the site being completed by June of that year

Members were informed that there would be a mix of family houses and types comprising detached, semi-detached and terraced properties but no flats would be included in the scheme.  The properties would be two and a half to three storeys in height and of a traditional appearance with materials being brick, tile and render

The Panel commented on the following matters:

·  flooding; that the site caused flooding problems around Ninelands Lane and concerns that these issues had not been fully addressed

·  that the site currently absorbed water and the implications on the drainage system of building on this site

·  concerns that the size of the windows of the proposed properties were small which could lead to more electricity needing to be used and that larger windows should be provided

·  that including bungalows for older people should be considered within the mix of affordable housing being provided

·  that traffic calming measures should be put in place and funded by the applicant to reduce traffic speed as it goes downhill within the vicinity of the site along Selby Road

·  that details were needed of the bin storage/collection on the site, particularly for the terraced properties

·  the position of the affordable units in the scheme.  Officers indicated the location of this which was in one corner of the site which was not acceptable to the Panel

The following comments were made in relation to the level of affordable

housing within the scheme

·  that 30% affordable housing should be provided in line with the approval given by the Inspector

·  that Members were unhappy with the issues flowing from the Grimes Dyke appeal decision yet it seemed that developers were benefiting further through the lower levels of affordable housing provision

·  that the mix of housing should be reconsidered and increases made to the amount of terraced properties on the site which would then increase the amount of affordable housing to be provided

·  that it was clear that the applicant had withdrawn one application and then submitted another one which offered the lower level of affordable housing

The Head of Planning Services referred to a report prepared by DTZ

regarding viability and the Council’s stance to that report which had been to approve the Interim Affordable Housing Policy which applied to all planning permissions after 1st June 2011 for a two year period in order to generate the construction of some schemes.  Although noting the Panel’s concerns about the implications of this, Members were informed that the policy had generated significant interest which in turn could generate construction, employment and affordable housing.  Members were also advised of the need to be consistent in relation to this policy and that Plans West had recently approved a scheme with a lower level of affordable housing than was previously agreed

  The Panel’s Legal representative stated that the affordable housing policy had been changed for a specific purpose; to deliver developments with the affordable housing being provided within two years, this being something which could not be insisted upon in the previous policy.  As the application being discussed was new, when it was to be determined, a reason for refusal could not be substantiated on the level of affordable housing being provided

  Members commented further on this issue:

·  that it had not been considered that in agreeing the interim housing policy, developers would seek to unpick S106 Agreements which had been signed

·  that this issue needed to be considered further, including Executive Board, with a suggestion that the Member/Officer Working Group and Joint Plans Panel consider this initially

·  that the whole site could comprise terraced properties which would markedly increase the amount of affordable units to be provided, even at a level of 15%.  Some concerns were raised at the effect of this on the site, with the view being expressed that a reasonable mix of house types was required

In response to the specific points raised in the report, the Panel

provided the following comments:

·  range of house types – generally acceptable although more terraced housing could be considered and that some bungalows should form part of the affordable housing mix, with the affordable units being pepper-potted throughout the site.  That the size of the windows of the properties should be maximised to allow good natural light penetration

·  in terms of materials, these were generally acceptable although it was felt that the rendered elements should be removed and replaced with brick

·  that the creation of two plateaux and landscape buffers was acceptable subject to improved landscaping to be provided

·  Members were not satisfied with the planting to the upper slopes of the site

·  that in terms of the proposed layout of the development that further details were needed especially the access arrangements between the groups of properties; that properties should meet the principles set out in Secured by Design

·  in relation to the height of the dwellings, the two storey buildings were considered to be acceptable but that any three storey dwellings should be sited further back into the site on the lower plateaux

·  concerning the relationship between properties and sizes of gardens, it was felt that for family accommodation, garden sizes should be generous, whereas if accommodation for a mix of ages was being proposed, smaller gardens could be considered for some properties

·  in respect of the affordable housing provision at 15%, that although this was in line with the new policy, Members were most unhappy at the way the applicant had dealt with the provision on this site; that whilst acknowledging the reasons for the policy change, the ramifications of this were now being seen and that the developer should honour the commitment made and accepted by the Inspector, to provide 30% affordable housing on this site

·  that Ward Members should be consulted on the content of the new S106 Agreement

RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

 

(Throughout the discussions on this matter, Councillors Gruen, Parker and Pryke left the meeting)

 

 

Supporting documents: