Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for engineering and ground works to allow development of 46 dwellings with associated access, car parking, landscaping and public open space.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented applications for engineering and ground works to facilitate residential development of 46 dwellings with associated access, car parking, landscaping and public open space at land off New Village Way, Churwell, Morley.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site pans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the applications.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the applications included the following:

·  The dwellings would consist of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses.

·  The scheme had been revised since the pre-application had been submitted to reduce the number of dwellings from 52.

·  The proposals would contribute to much needed housing in the area.

·  Fourteen of the properties did not meet internal spacing standards although these standards were yet to be adopted in Leeds.

·  Reference was made to noise levels from the M621 motorway were considered to be acceptable.

·  With regard to impact on local schools it was reported that the proposals were likely to create a demand for 12 primary places and 5 secondary places.  There were expansion plans for local primary schools and new secondary provision in the area. Community Infrastructure Levy contributions

·  The site presented challenges but on balance the proposals were felt to be acceptable and the application was recommended for approval.

Local residents addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  The proposed houses were too small, there would be too much noise disturbance from the motorway, insufficient public transport links and highways access.

·  The noise levels would impact on resident’s quality of life.

·  The existing road loop and single access road would not be sufficient.

·  Current infrastructure was not adequate and the number of school places that would be required was questioned.

·  Loss of open greenspace.

·  The existing highways network could not cope with traffic and was often at a standstill.  There needed to be a second access road.

·  Impact of additional traffic and proximity to the motorways and the effect on health and wellbeing including danger from increased vehicle emissions.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel, the following was highlighted:

·  The original plans had been revised to reduce the number of dwellings and create more open space.

·  The site was unallocated on the Unitary Development Plan and would create windfall housing towards meeting targets along with benefits of a Section 106 agreement and CIL contributions.

·  There would not be a negative impact on highways.

·  Noise surveys had shown that there would not be internal disturbance although some properties may have noise disturbance on external areas.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Concern regarding noise levels and the impact on quality of life.

·  Air quality – it was reported that the site was not in an air quality zone and was not subject to monitoring.

·  It was felt that there was an adequate buffer between the proposed dwellings and the motorway.  There were houses closer to the motorway at other locations.

·  Concern regarding blockages on the only access road and potential hindrance to emergency services.

·  Concern that the proposals would breach guidelines.

·  Highways and public transport issues – it was reported that access was considered to be suitable and concerns were not of a sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the application.  With regards to public transport, Cottingley Railway Station was within 400 metres of the site.

·  No planning by Clinical Commissioning Groups for additional health facilities.

·  Concern regarding proposals for properties with room sizes below guidelines.

A motion was made to refuse the application.  This motion was voted against and a further motion was made to defer the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow for further negotiation in relation to house sizes, room sizes and site layout; statement of health provision and statement of school provision.