Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of outbuildings, laying out of access roads and erect 92 houses with landscaping.

  Further to minute 34 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 12^th July 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on the application, Members considered the formal application.  It was noted that a site visit had taken place prior to the meeting held on 12^th July 2012

  Prior to the presentation of the report, the Chair asked that for the benefit of the public who were in attendance for this item, relevant aspects of the planning system be outlined

  The Panel’s Lead Officer explained that in determining a planning application, a decision maker, this being the Panel, had to have regard to the development plan, this currently being the UDP, unless there were material reasons for not doing so.  Furthermore, in this particular case, the site was allocated for housing development and therefore the principle of residential use was established, although the detail of the scheme was likely to form the basis of the debate on the application

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report for a residential scheme comprising 92 houses with landscaping and access on a greenfield site at Daisy Hill, Morley LS27 and addressed the issues which had been raised by Panel when considering the position statement

  Regarding the degree of openness to the street frontage, whilst consideration had been given to setting the houses further back, this would impact on vehicular access arrangements and therefore the siting of the properties would remain the same although improved landscaping to the front would now be included

  Concerning the steep drop to some properties on the southern boundary, a close-boarded fence would be provided and plots 22-23 would be resited 1-1.5m further away from the boundary

  In respect of highways, whilst the comments contained in the previous report remained, a reassessment of the junction with Victoria Grove had been undertaken but that a TRO to provide double yellow lines was proposed in order to maximise safety in this location

  In terms of education provision, the applicant had agreed to provide the full amount required in the S106 Agreement for this scheme and it would be for Children’s Services to decide how this contribution would be used

  Environmental concerns and that there had been previous complaints about the odour from the nearby industrial uses but that the level of complaints had decreased and that the operators were working within the Environmental Permits

  In relation to the appearance of the proposed dwellings, the applicant had carried out and submitted a character assessment of the area which had concluded there was no specific character of housing in the area, however reference had been made to aspects of the surrounding properties in the design details of the dwellings

At this point, due to the level of public attendance for this meeting, the Chair asked if those not attending for this application would wait in the Ante-Chamber where they would be called at the conclusion of this item

  Officers stated that the proposal complied with the guidance in ‘Neighbourhoods for Living and further updated the report stating that a Metrocard scheme was to be agreed; that further information had been provided in respect of the Code for Sustainable Housing with conditions around sustainability being recommended and that in respect of noise and disturbance, this matter had been considered and was felt to be acceptable, subject to the condition set out in the submitted report.  If minded to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application, Members were informed that condition 21 in the submitted report should be deleted and that the wording of the recommendation should be altered to include Affordable Housing provision of 15%

  The Panel heard from an objector and the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the level of consultation the applicant had engaged in with local residents

·  public transport provision; the proximity of the nearest bus stop which exceeded the distance regarded as acceptable by an Inspector on a scheme in another part of the city and the frequency of bus services

·  education provision for the estimated 21 primary school children from the development, in view of a lack of places at several primary schools closest to the site

·  drainage, with concerns that the proposed attenuation measures would have an impact on drainage further along at the Ring Road and concerns that the proposed measures might not be sufficient in view of the recent wet weather

·  the proximity to the site of industrial uses; that a well-established business employing a large number of local people could be affected if the number of environmental complaints increased and the acceptance in the Officer’s report that there was little, if anything which could be done to eliminate odours from this use

·  the population figures for Leeds and the number of planning permissions granted for residential units

·  the siting of the affordable housing with some concerns that whilst this was in several locations and it met the requirements of Officers, it did not represent true pepperpotting,

·  whether health providers had been consulted or made aware of the proposals as in view of the scale of the development, this would impact on health provision

·  the provision of the close-boarded fence; the maintenance of this and the POS beyond it and continuing concerns about the proximity of the houses close to the cliff edge and overdevelopment of the site

·  highways issues and concerns that the development would have a detrimental impact, particularly on Churwell Hill

·  concerns at the principle of residential development on the site and that greenfield sites should be protected

·  the efforts of the Council to craft a new relationship with volume house-builders and disappointment at the scheme being presented for approval

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that the normal expectation for a development of this type and location would be for bus stops to high frequency services to be within a 400m walk of the site or a rail station to be within a 800m walk.  Whilst bus stops were within 400m, the services available were not high frequency.   However, the site was a short walk to the rail station giving access to Leeds and access to public transport was considered to be acceptable.  In addition, high frequency bus services were available approximately a 700m walk from the site and the applicant was to fund reconstruction of the footpath between Daisy Hill to the rail station.   This link would benefit the site and also existing residents.  In terms of the number of traffic movements the scheme would generate, the transport assessment which had been submitted had been audited using the industry standard TRICS database and Officers were satisfied the development would not have a significant impact on the local road network including Churwell Hill

·  that drainage from the development would go into the existing water course with attenuation measures being provided to ensure the run-off rates were at greenfield level so ensuring the impact of the development did not worsen the current situation.  Whilst Members might wish to see an improved situation, the planning judgement used for new development was that it should not make the existing situation worse

·  that Officers were not in possession at the meeting of the 2011 census figures but that the figures were within 5,000 of the estimate of the Core Strategy and that in terms of agreed planning permissions for residential units, there were 21,600, with the annual target in the draft Core Strategy being for 3,500 extra residential units per year with currently around 2,000 being provided.  On this matter, the Chief Planning Officer referred to the Secretary of State’s announcement earlier in the day of the relaxation of permitted development rights and S106 agreements and the possibility of taking the determination of applications into the hands of the Planning Inspectorate where concerns existed over the speed and quality of the work of the local planning authority

·  that there was currently no requirement to make extra provision for health services through the planning system, although a dialogue was being developed around making these links

·  that the responsibility for maintaining the fence would rest with the residents but that a management plan was required to be submitted for the POS beyond it

Members considered how to proceed and further discussed areas of

concern; the limitations of the site and the possibility of sustaining reasons for refusal on appeal

  RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out further information and possible reasons for refusal based upon the unsustainability of the site with reference to the policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

  Following this item those members of the public who had vacated their seats to help alleviate the overcrowding in the room, were invited back into the meeting