Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development for circa 135 dwellings, including means of vehicular access from Moseley Wood Rise and pedestrian/emergency link from Cookridge Drive

(report attached)

  The Head of Planning Services withdrew from the meeting at this point

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place in November 2014, when Panel had considered a larger residential development on the site

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for outline approval for a residential development of up to 135 dwellings and access on a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site rear of Moseley Wood Rise, Cookridge LS16

  Members were informed that the proposals, which were now for only part of the site were for predominantly detached and semi-detached dwellings with driveways and rear gardens

  Receipt of a further 17 letters of objection was reported, together with a further representation from the local MP, which was outlined to Members.  The Panel was also informed that the Coal Authority had responded and had no objection to the proposals

  If minded to approve the application, a further condition was proposed requiring off-site highway works to Moseley Wood Rise to be carried out prior to any development on site

  Members were informed that the site met the requirements of the interim PAS policy and that the principle of development was established by Panel in April 2014, when a position statement on a larger residential development was presented to Members

  Details of the travel planning arrangements of the scheme were outlined with Officers being of the view that these matters and the reduced level of development now proposed for the site overcame some of the issues associated with the larger development, which Panel had refused

  Officers from the Council’s Geotechnical Section and Flood Risk Management were in attendance and provided detailed information in respect of drainage, which was a particularly contentious issue on this site, with Members being informed that the biggest influencing factor was a sewer which was discharging into the eastern corner of the site, with this first appearing on a 1959 map.  This sewer had uncontrolled/unrestricted discharge on to the site; the water was not escaping easily and the ground was soaking up the water

  Much additional information from Cookridge Residents’ Action Group (CRAG) and from the applicant had been received and considered by Officers, however it was felt that the applicant’s drainage proposals were more than sufficient to deal with the land drainage issues on the site, although it was accepted that there was always the possibility of flooding in the district if storms were in excess of what the scheme had been designed for

  In terms of school places, Children’s Services had indicated that local schools could be expanded, albeit by the use of temporary accommodation, to accommodate the likely number of primary school age children from the development and the applicant had made a commitment to education provision within the S106 Agreement

  On the timescale for the development, Members were informed that the applicant was seeking a 2 year outline permission for commencement and the submission of Reserved Matters

  Prior to Members hearing representations from a geotechnical expert and from a local Ward Member, reference was made to additional information which had been sent directly to Members by CRAG, with the Chair being asked if additional copies could be circulated to Members.  The Chair declined.  Members then considered the representations which were made and which included:

·  the drainage problems on the site

·  the inadequacy of the site investigations

·  geological issues

·  the accuracy of the ground water levels as reported to Panel

·  that the full picture of future drainage on the site had not been explored

·  that the proposals were premature

·  that the Council had in excess of a 5 year housing land supply

·  that alternative brownfield sites existed in the area

·  the extent of development in the Adel and Wharfedale Ward

·  the size of the site and that the interim PAS policy did not apply

·  the unsustainability of the site

·  the topography of the site and that it was disadvantageous for many social groups

·  the potential loss of bus services

·  that an Equality Impact Assessment had not been carried out

The Panel questioned the speakers closely on aspects of their

representations, particularly sustainability and drainage, with Members being informed of the need for the groundwater drainage conditions to be properly investigated prior to considering a suitable drainage scheme

  Members then heard representations on behalf of the applicant, with information being provided which included:

·  that the emergency link was no longer a requirement

·  that with the adoption of the Core Strategy, affordable housing at 35% would now be provided

·  that a detailed drainage scheme would be brought back at Reserved Matters stage

·  that 6 months of testing and recording had been carried out on the site in respect of drainage issues

In view of the different expert opinions on the issue of drainage,

Members pressed Officers on whether the development could proceed safely in respect of drainage and water issues.  The Council’s Flood Risk Manager stated that the application was in outline; that additional information had been sought of the applicant and provided and that a land drainage system was now proposed which was conditioned and that on this basis, he was content with what had been provided.  The Geotechnical Officer in attendance stated that the proposed drainage system would drain the surface soils

  Members discussed the application, with the key issues relating to:

·  drainage and the responses provided by Officers

·  the extent of development and issues of sustainability

·  access arrangements

·  the need for the S106 Agreement to be signed without delay

The Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for

approval subject to conditions to cover those matters set out in the submitted report, an additional condition requiring off-site highway works to Moseley Wood Rise to be carried out prior to any development on site (and any other conditions which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to cover the following:

·  affordable housing at 35% on site (47 units on current indicative masterplan, split 60%/40% between Social Rent and Submarket)

·  public transport contribution £1226 per dwelling

·  off-site highways works for crossing on Green Lane and build out on Cookridge Drive and 20mph scheme for the existing surrounding roads

·  education contribution of £643,115.09 – equivalent of £4763 per dwelling

·  greenspace contribution (the current layout results in an indicative contribution of £1097)

·  travel plan measures including car club contribution of £4,000 monitoring fee of £2675 and £10.000 penalty should travel plan targets not be achieved

·  bus stop contribution of £30,000 and Metro Card contribution -£64,226.25

·  local employment and training initiatives during the construction of the development

·  public access to public open space and biodiversity and ecology enhancement management plan

·  indexed linked contributions

In the circumstances where the Section 106 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

  Following consideration of this matter, the Head of Planning Services resumed his seat in the meeting

  Councillor Cohen left the meeting at this point