Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for residential development comprising 104 dwellings with associated car parking and garages, formation of new access, public open space, landscaping and parking facilities and outline planning application for residential development and means of access

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on two applications, one in outline, one for full planning permission, for a residential development at Grove Road Boston Spa

  Officers presented the report and advised that the land was a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site and was adjacent to a Conservation Area

  The proposed outline application sought to establish the principle of development.  The detailed application provided a means of access off Grove Road; the proposed dwellings would be generally two storeys in height and comprise mainly detached dwellings.  Officers considered that the proposed layout was overly intense.  The application included 20 car parking spaces for the adjacent hospice

  The proposed materials would be artificial stone, some natural stone and render.  Officers had concerns about the extent of the artificial stone to be used on the scheme

  The site was 3.9ha in area and Officers were not aware that the land was needed for other uses.  However in terms of location, it was considered that Boston Spa was not well related to major urban areas.  Members were informed therefore that the application failed on criteria 1 of the Council’s interim policy on the release of PAS land for housing development

  Members were also informed that other housing land development opportunities were available in Boston Spa; that there were highways issues associated with the proposals; the site was some distance from local facilities and public transport was poor.  The development therefore would be heavily reliant on car use.  In terms of the transport assessment which had been submitted, Officers had concerns about this and whilst the applicant had submitted recent revisions, concerns remained about the internal road layout and parking facilities

  In terms of the layout of the development, some properties were too close to each other; the greenspace was considered not to be located in a usable or meaningful area and that a central location for this would be preferred.  There were also concerns about the impact of the development on existing trees, particularly damage to roots and that increased planting was needed around the site

  Regarding the impact of the proposals on living conditions, Officers were satisfied that the proposals would not impact on the amenity of residents in neighbouring properties but there were concerns about the living conditions of future residents of the development

  In respect of the S106 Agreement, Members were informed that this had not been taken forward in view of the major concerns which existed with the proposals

  Members considered how to proceed.  In view of the number of problems associated with the applications, Members were minded to refuse the application, but were asked to consider whether they wished for further negotiations to be undertaken

  In response to the specific points raised in the report, Members provided the following comments:

·  that the site was not in compliance with the interim PAS Policy

·  to note the comments of Highways Officers and Metro, as set out in the submitted report and that the means of access was of insufficient width

·  that there were too many properties proposed for the site

·  that the use of artificial stone was excessive

·  that the extent and location of the public open space was not good enough

·  that the proposals would have an adverse impact on existing trees

·  that Members had concerns over the quality of amenity for future residents

The Chair stated that a steer should be given that as presented, the

application would be refused

  The Chief Planning Officer sought further guidance on Panel’s view about the suitability of the site at this time, with Members considering that it did not meet the policy test for the release of the site for development

  The issue of whether to delegate the refusal to the Chief Planning Officer was discussed, with Members satisfied that this could be dealt with in this way

  RESOLVED – Initially, to delegate refusal of the applications to the Chief Planning Officer as the site failed the criteria set out in the interim PAS Policy and that there were also concerns which included layout; materials; highways and impact on living conditions of residents and impact on trees

  Having taken advice on this course of action, it was felt that delegating refusal of the application had denied the applicant an opportunity to address the Panel.  Having considered this, it was

  RESOLVED -  That the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out possible reasons for refusal of the application, based on the concerns raised, for determination by the Panel

  During consideration of this matter Councillor J Lewis left the meeting