Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for residential development of 210 dwellings.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for proposed residential development of 210 dwellings at Victoria Reservoir and land at Bruntcliffe Road, Morley, Leeds.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation the application included the following:

·  The application site is 8.7 hectares in size, fronting onto Bruntcliffe Road, to the north, wrapping around the covered Victoria Reservoir to the west and south, before meeting up with recent development to the east off Perry Way. The southern boundary of the site is marked by the M62, to the west are industrial units accessed off Scott Lane

·  The development would consist of 210 homes, predominantly detached houses, the majority of properties would be of 2 storey height, with flat units at 3 storeys and a number of units in the northern portion being 2.5 storeys.

·  The house types proposed are standard for a volume house builder and provide a variety of styles, featuring pitched roofs, hipped roofs and gable features

·  45 of the units are proposed to be 2 bedroom units, 94 are proposed to be 3 bed units and 71 are proposed to be 4 bed units. There are no 1 bed or 5 bed units.

·  There are three main points of access to the site, one from Scott Lane, one from Bruntcliffe Road and one from Perry Way. There are also connections with residential streets to the east joining in with roads currently under construction

·  A pumping station is proposed to the south within the buffer zone adjacent to the motorway.

It was reported that a letter of objection had been received from Councillor N Dawson regarding Public Rights of Way issues.

It was also reported that the applicants had submitted a report setting out details of noise mitigation measures.

(Councillor Walshaw informed the meeting that the following speaker, Mr L Davision was known to him having been previously involved in a number of Public Rights of Way issues)

The Panel heard from Mr L Davision (Ramblers Association Leeds Group) who referred to Public Rights of Way issues and spoke in respect of the following:

·  The temporary diversion of footpath No.90 during construction was acceptable but strict conditioning was required

·  Further clarification was required around the linking of foothpath No.87 to 90, the proposed route exposed walkers/ramblers to traffic which was not acceptable

The Panel then heard from Mr M Jones, the applicant’s agent who spoke in support of the application and referred to the following issues:

·  Referring to the public rights of way issues, Mr Jones confirmed a number of footpaths across the site had been temporarily diverted for health and safety implication whilst construction was ongoing but all paths would be retained

In response to questions and comments from the Panel, the following were discussed:

·  Public Rights of Way issues required conditioning

·  Could further consideration be given to the proposed play areas in the middle of the estate

·  School provision was raised as a concern, one Member suggestion that it was unacceptable to plan large scale development with no consideration to school provision

·  Concern was expressed that footpath No.87 appeared to run along the boundary of the motorway

·  Clarification was sought on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) requirement for the development, the figure referred to in Section No.9 of the submitted report appeared to be low.

In responding officers confirmed that Public Rights of Way issues would be addressed by condition, further consideration would be given to the proposed play areas in the middle of the estate, Officer’s from Children’s Services confirmed that there was a small number of place available within schools in the area, however, consideration was been given to the provision of a bulge cohort within these schools and there was also a proposal for a temporary expansion to Fountain Primary School. On the proposed CIL requirement, officers confirmed an amount of £957,652.99

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (with the inclusion of an additional condition relating to Public Rights of Ways provision) and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Affordable Housing (15% provision with 60/40 split)

·  Travel Plan Review Fee £3,050

·  Residential Travel Plan Fund (£103,141.50)

·  Travel Plan Penalty £6,500

·  Upgrade of Bus Shelter contribution (£20,000)

·  Local Employment Provision

·  On site greenspace management / maintenance(unless dealt with via conditions)

In the event of the Section 106 Agreement not having been completed within 3 months of the panel resolution to grant planning permission, final determination be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer