Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the
meeting. A Members site visit had
taken place earlier in the day
Officers presented a position statement on proposals for a major
residential development on land at Grimes Dyke off York Road
Whinmoor. It was noted that the site was a Phase 2
housing allocation and that there was an extant outline planning
permission on the site for circa 500 dwellings which had been
granted on appeal, following refusal of planning permission by the
Council
The site would provide connections to another major scheme, known
as the Northern Quadrant but could be brought forward in its own
right
Details of the topography of the site were provided with a key
feature of the site being the presence of strong hedgerow
boundaries around and across the site which, where possible, would
be enhanced by additional planting. Members were informed that some of the trees
on the site were covered by TPOs. A number of
greenspace areas were proposed, one to
the east, which would also include a flood attenuation basin, an
area to the York Road frontage, a more formal urban park to the
west and a number of green areas running alongside the retained
hedgerows
The current full planning application was for 364 dwellings in a
mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terrace
properties, together with a gateway block of flats and ancillary
and retail and community facilities. The majority of the dwellings would be of
two storeys in height although there were some two and a half
storey and three storey properties. Some concerns had been raised about
the height of the proposed two and a half storey properties
adjacent to the north west boundary and further discussions on this
would take place with the applicants
Two developers would be on site and whilst there were some
differences in the design of the properties they would be
traditional in appearance
One issue which had been raised was the inclusion of rear access
ways and that Officers had asked for these to be deleted from the
scheme in view of the problems these could cause. Concerns also existed about the inclusion of
parking courts and discussions were ongoing on this matter in order
to seek a resolution. Officers
had also provided the applicants with initial comments on the
detailed design of the buildings and landscape quality
Regarding the planning obligations Members were informed that the
scheme granted permission on appeal provided for affordable housing
at a level of 30%. Since that
time an interim affordable housing policy requiring a level of 15%
affordable housing had been introduced and this is what was being
proposed for this scheme. The
build out period for the scheme would be 5 to 6 years and whilst
Officers were seeking to optimise the level of affordable housing
to be provided over that time, the applicants had stated there were
potential viability issues as the cost of the access and education
contributions had risen considerably . Further information on this would be
provided which would include consultation with Ward Members
The receipt of three representations on the scheme to date was
reported, with issues relating to highways, boundary hedges and
possible land contamination being raised
Members commented on the following matters:
- the issue raised at the site visit
that morning about the possibility of animal carcasses being buried
on site following the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the 1960s
and the need to properly address this issue if it was established
to be the case
- the size of the gardens and whether
these met the minimum recommended size
- drainage, with further details being
requested
- the proposed phasing of the
scheme
- the retail units and their
relationship with the Northern Quadrant development
- the block of flats; the need for
this in the scheme; that the design of the block was unimaginative
and lacked architectural merit and that by definition it could not
be regarded as a gateway building due to the absence of development
on the opposite side to it
- the comments of Harewood Ward Members about the design of the
dwellings and whether the request for the inclusion of chimneys had
been met
- the provision of car parking and
whether each property had a parking space at the front
- the need to ensure that for the
semi-detached properties, the front doors were not sited
immediately next to each other
- the need for further details about
the proposed materials, particularly the colour of the bricks to be
used
- that ‘standard’ design
types for the properties should not be used but that house types
specifically designed for the area should be provided
- the amount of usable greenspace in the scheme and that a greater level
of this should be provided and consideration of a child-friendly
play space would be welcomed
- the siting of an area of greenspace adjacent to York Road in view of the
levels of noise and traffic fumes users of this area would
experience and the need for the location of this to be
reconsidered
- child safety concerns about the
siting of the pond
- the need for further information to
be provided on the measures to be taken to retain and enhance
existing biodiversity on the site
- possible noise nuisance from the A64
which would affect those properties sited closest to it and the
need for this to be addressed
- the retail unit; the servicing
arrangements for this and that its siting could affect its viability as there was no
passing traffic which was essential to the success of such outlets,
with similar concerns being raised about the position of the
community facility in the scheme
- that Ward Members had now accepted
the Inspector’s decision on the site and were seeking a high
quality, sustainable scheme which would also set the tone for the
other large-scale neighbouring schemes which were being
proposed
- that in terms of a S106 agreement,
that the full education contributions were welcomed as was the
commitment to local jobs, training and an early start on
site. However, the previous offer
of 30% affordable housing which had been accepted by the Inspector
when the appeal was allowed could not be ignored, and whilst the
Council had agreed an interim policy requiring a lower level of
affordable housing provision it had not been envisaged, as had
occurred on this site, that a fresh application would be submitted
in order to take advantage of the requirement to provide a lower
level of affordable housing.
Although Ward Members accepted that 30% affordable housing would
not now be achieved on this site, it was hoped that given their
reputation, the developers would increase the offer, possibly to
20%, which would provide an additional 18 much needed affordable
homes. Whilst the Officer’s
comments regarding viability were noted, the view was expressed
that additional affordable housing would not be difficult to
achieve on this site, but in the event that viability was raised as
an issue, a very comprehensive financial viability assessment would
need to be undertaken to establish the facts of the matter
- that the scheme did not make
specific provision for older people and that the block of flats
could provide such an opportunity, subject to its redesign
- that ginnels must be deleted from the scheme at this
early stage due to their unpopularity with residents and the
opportunities they presented for crime and anti-social
behaviour
- that there were insufficient details
in the heads of terms in respect of the retail and community
facilities to ascertain what was intended for these
- that there was a need to properly
consider the strategic impact of this scheme and the Northern
Quadrant development and how the two sites would interact
- that health facilities were much
needed in the area and the lack of these were often raised by local
residents
Officers provided the following
responses:
- that investigations would commence
on the issue raised on site about the possible burial of diseased
animal carcasses on parts of the site
- that in terms of garden size, whilst
on balance, all agreed with the guidance contained in
‘Neighbourhoods for Living’ some of them were not of a
regular shape
- that the part of the site which
would contain the pond and flood attenuation measures would be
remodelled, but that the land would be undevelopable and where there was heavy rainfall,
the amount of water within the attenuation basin would increase and
be released at greenfield rates of
runoff
- that a phasing plan for the scheme
would be sought
- that the relationship between the
Grimes Dyke site and the Northern Quadrant site was important as a
local centre was being proposed for that site and that a view was
sought from Members on whether the retail unit should be deleted in
favour of the greater element of retail use in the Northern
Quadrant site. In relation to
this, there were also other local retail outlets at Fieldhead Carr and Seacroft Town Centre which had to be
considered
- regarding the design of the
properties, that discussions had taken place with the developers
and that they were aware of the issues raised, particularly the
detailed design comments made by Ward Members
- that Members’ comments about
the flats within the scheme would be discussed with the
applicants
- that some parking courts were being
proposed but that discussions on these were ongoing
- that the issue raised about the
positioning of front doors on the semi-detached properties would be
taken up with the applicants
- that the comments made about design
issues and the level of affordable housing to be provided would
also be taken up with the applicants
- in terms of noise nuisance, comments
were awaited from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team
which could include suggested distances and noise attenuation
measures
- that an Environmental Statement had
been submitted with the application which included an ecology
report but that neither newts or badgers were present on the
site
- concerning a children’s play
area, the original scheme did propose one but since then the
Council had erected one near to the primary school close to the
site but that the provision of a further play area could be
considered
- that the design of the frontage of
the site took into consideration a possible extension of the
NGT route
-
In response to the specific issues
raised in the report, Members provided
the following comments:
- in respect of the omission of the
link through to Birchfields Garth, that
Members would not press for the footpath to be reinstated as there
was an alternative route
- to note the comments made about the
buildings being proposed; the need for greater design detail to be
provided and local Ward Members’ comments to be taken on
board. Whilst the proposed mix of
house types was acceptable, there were concerns about the two and a
half storey properties along the north western side of the site,
with a view being expressed that these were overdominant
- concerning the quality of street and
landscape planting throughout the development, little detail had
been provided but to note the comments made regarding the potential
inclusion of a children’s play area and the biodiversity of
the site
- that Members were broadly satisfied
about the location and nature of the proposed pond and flood
attenuation area although the issue of safety had been raised
- in respect of the nature and layout
of the proposed greenspaces, to note
the concerns raised about the location of the area adjacent to York
Road; whether an additional area should be provided in view of the
large area being taken up to accommodate the flood attenuation
basin and that the retention and enhancement of the hedgerows was
welcomed
- that in terms of the relationship
between the existing and/or new properties proposed, Members were
broadly content with this, subject to detail along the north west
boundary of the site
- to note Members’ comments
about the level of affordable housing on the site
- that the location of the shop needed
to be considered in relation to the Northern Quadrant site; that
the community centre element needed to be separated out from the
retail unit and that the provision of medical facilities needed to
be looked at in the round
RESOLVED – To
note the report and the comments now made
Towards of the end of consideration
of this matter, Councillor J McKenna and Councillor R Procter left
the meeting)