Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 364 dwellings with ancillary retail and community facilities to land at Grimes Dyke, Off York Road, Whinmoor.

(Report attached)

Further to minute 23 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 25^th October 2012 where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a residential development at Grimes Dyke, LS14, Members considered the formal application

Plans, photographs, graphics and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  Officers presented the report and advised that in view of the comments made by Panel in October, the scheme had been revised with the retail element being deleted from the scheme in favour of a more robust district centre to be provided as part of the adjacent Northern Quadrant proposals.  In terms of community facilities, Ward Members had expressed the view that providing funds to enhance existing facilities in the area was more appropriate, therefore a commuted sum of £150,000 had been agreed with the applicant for this.  In view of the deletion of these uses from the scheme, a further 6 dwellings would now be provided on the site

Other revisions to the scheme were outlined, these being the deletion of the two and half storey properties; the redesign of the apartment block; the removal of rear access ways and a reduction in the number of rear parking courts

In terms of affordable housing, the application granted on appeal included 30% affordable housing.  Although Officers had pursued the higher level, the costs of the scheme and particularly the site access rendered a level of 30% unviable.  What was now being offered by the applicant – 15% -  was in line with the current policy and because of the increase in the number of dwellings to 370, a further affordable dwelling would be provided to reflect the increase in units

In respect of education contributions, Members were informed that Children’s Services had sought a full secondary education contribution as whilst there would be capacity in local high schools in the early years of the development, over time, these places would be filled.  The developer having originally not agreed to a secondary education contribution had now agreed to provide this at a figure of £323,364.49.  In view of the additional 6 dwellings on site, the primary education contribution had increased and would now be £1,073,008.42.  The S106 Agreement had been discussed with Ward Members and on balance, Ward Members were comfortable with the package

An issue raised at the October meeting had been the possibility of land contamination through the burying of animal carcasses on the site.  The Environment Agency had been consulted on this but records prior to 2001 – the last major foot and mouth outbreak – did not exist.  However, since 2001 there were no records of carcasses being buried on this site

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the need for assurances that the education contributions would be available to local schools rather than used city wide

·  the provision of jobs and skills, including apprenticeships and that this should be clearer in the S106 Agreement

·  the need for the developer to give assurances that they would work with local Councillors on the issue of jobs, skills and apprenticeships

·  the proximity of a primary school to the site and that opportunities existed for curriculum initiatives arising out of the construction process

·  the need to clarify the meaning of ‘local’ in terms of employment,

·  the play area provision and the need to ensure this was overlooked to avoid the possibility of anti-social behaviour and requests for CCTV cameras

·  safety issues in respect of the attenuation basin, with concerns being raised that mitigation measures were needed to prevent accidents from occurring

·  the design of the spine road, whether the intention was to link this with the East Leeds Extension (ELE); concerns that traffic from the proposed development in the Northern Quadrant could use the spine road for access and that this road should not be open to general traffic

·  the need to ensure there was sufficient land available if in the future the junction required improvement

·  the possibility of introducing 20mph zones as standard in new residential schemes

·  provision for cyclists including those less confident to use the major roads

·  that there was an opportunity to consider greater use of shared spaces

·  the design of some of the properties, with concerns that these were poor and uninspiring; that this was the first of a number of major residential proposals in East Leeds and that it was important that this set the standard for what could follow

·  the need for Officers to address design issues at an early stage and to establish general principles about how new estates should look in respect of cycleways, design, sustainability etc

·  the position of the front doors on some dwellings and that these should be separated, although there were mixed views on this

·  the need for a reduction in the amount of hardstanding and that dormers should be considered instead of attic windows

·  the possibility of further improvements to the design of the dwellings but the need to protect the package of contributions achieved

·  that all the sustainability issues included on the extant permission should be included in this application

·  affordable housing provision, with concerns that the developer was seeking an open-ended agreement with no commitment to increasing the level of provision in the event the policy changed and the required levels increased, with concerns that if allowed, other developers would seek similar agreements

·  that the S106 Agreement should specify a commitment for delivery of housing on the site within 2 years

Officers provided the following comments:

·  that for the education contributions where these were spent was not usually so restrictive but that Ward Members’ requirements were noted and that Children’s Services would liaise with Ward Members regarding where this funding would be spent (this would be reflected in the S1.06 Agreement)

·  that local employment within the S106 Agreement could be specified as being a priority for local people in the immediate and neighbouring wards

·  that the play area was overlooked by properties

·  concerning safety issues to the attenuation basin, that the detailed landscaping drawings had not been submitted but Members’ concerns could be picked up at the detailed landscaping stage

·  that the scheme had always been designed to have a surface spine road to link to the ELE in the future but that no detailed assessment of this junction in relation to ELE had been made

·  that in terms of future proofing, the wish was to connect these sites and Metro wished to run buses from ELE through the Grimes Dyke site.  However the spine road would be designed to discourage general through traffic and in addition to the spine road there would be many other routes to and from the ELE so it was not anticipated the spine route would become the route of choice for drivers.  The quickest routes through the area would remain the major ones bounding the site

·  that there were no plans to increase the width of the junction as a three-lane exit was not being considered

·  that in the Street Design Guide which was a Supplementary Planning Document, 20mph zones were promoted on all new residential roads, except through routes and that Officers would ensure that 20mph zones would be included in this development

·  that provision for cyclists in this scheme was on the main roads, although there were segregated and designated cycle links from York Road and that more segregated and separate provision was being considered at the rest of ELE

·  that the use of grey water could be taken up with the developers but in any event, the scheme would need to meet Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes

The Chief Planning Officer welcomed the debate and the detailed issues which Members were focussing on and which would be a feature of the additional meeting to consider position statements on several proposals relating to ELE.  In terms of design issues, further discussions would take place with the developers with a view to raising the standard of some of the units and that these discussions would be referred back to Ward Members for Crossgates and Whinmoor.  These would be dealt with at the same time as the re-advertising and the completion of the S106 agreement

The Case Officer was thanked for his presentation and Officers and the developers were acknowledged for their efforts in bringing this scheme forward

RESOLVED – To approve the application in principle and to defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the resolution of outstanding layout issues as specified in the submitted report; the expiry of any re-advertising (as may be appropriate and subject to no new substantive issues being raised) further discussions with the developer on design issues, with these being reported back to Ward Members and imposition of the specified conditions and following completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following additional matters:

·  affordable housing – 15% (of which 40% social rent and 60% sub-market)

·  two new bus stops with ‘Real Time’ information on York Road (£20,000 each)

·  residential MetroCards – Scheme B (bus only) (current cost £717.20 per ticket)

·  travel plan review fee - £3,280

·  public transport improvement contribution - £884.94 per house and £283.06 per flat

·  education contributions (primary - £1,073,008.42 and secondary - £323,364.49)

·  community facilities - £150,00 by way of commuted sum

·  provision of footways/cycleways linking the development to Whinmoor Way

·  public access areas scheme, including children’s playground

·  sustainable drainage scheme – including commuted sume of £183,00 for future maintenance

·  commitment for delivery of housing on site within 2 years of the date of the grant of planning permission

·  local training and employment initatives to be prioritised for people in the immediate and neighbouring wards

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer unless following the further design discussions, Ward Members have outstanding concerns, whereby the application will be returned to Panel for determination

Councillor Murray joined the meeting during consideration of this matter