Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for residential development of 43 houses with associated landscaping and access on land to the rear of 5 and 14 Merton Close, Kippax, Leeds 25.

(Report attached) 

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for residential development of 43 houses with associated landscaping and access on land to the rear of 5 and 14 Merton Close, Kippax, Leeds 25.

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

The Planning Case Officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  The development was originally submitted for 41 houses and through negotiations over time, principally relating to layout and housing mix issues, that number increased to 46 and is now reduced to 43 units.

·  The proposals include a cul-de-sac development, due to the size, nature and location of the site, through extending the existing highway beyond the end of Merton Close. The layout includes a spine road leading to a cul-de-sac with houses on one side, overlooking the Sandgate Lane footpath and the greenspace and other open land to the west. A cul-de-sac to the north results in houses overlooking the landscape buffer, retained existing hedgerow and agricultural land to the north. The cul-de-sac to the south contains houses which front the street. Two properties are located sideways on to the street, but this is over a short distance and is not an unusual relationship. The properties on the southern side of the site back on to the existing properties on Sandgate Drive and Merton Close, though they are separated by a narrow strip of land which is not in the applicant’s ownership.

·  The scheme contains a bungalow proposed to the north of No.14 Merton close, though the remainder of the properties are two storey houses. Thirteen house types, including the bungalow, are proposed for the market sale units, whilst a further two house types are proposed for the Affordable Housing units.

·  The proposals include the retention of the strong hedgerow feature to the north and east of the site, as well as the retention of vegetation and landscape setting to Sandgate Lane, to the western side of the site.

In response to Members questions, the following issues were discussed:

·  The development appeared to be a long way from local amenities: schools, medical practice and shops, could an indication of the distance be provided

·  The site was adjacent to the Persimmon Homes site, were there any development links

·  The Sandgate Lane footpath, could an improved surface be included as part of the landscape requirements

·  There appeared to be a lack of public open space on the site.

·  Could a dog waste litter bin be provided on the Sandgate Lane footpath

The Planning Case Officer provided the following responses:

·  In terms of distance to amenities it was reported that: Ash Tree Primary School, Kippax was a 7 minute walk away, Brigshaw High School was a 30 minute walk and the High Street was a 13 minute walk.

·  Officers confirmed that there were no development links with Persimmon Homes, though both sites form part of one designated Protected Areas of Search (PAS) in the UDP (Review)

·  Officers reported that as part of the Persimmon Homes development the developers had agreed to provide a crushed limestone surface to the Sandgate Lane footpath

·  Officers confirmed there was sufficient public open space on the overall development of the PAS site (including both the application site and adjacent Persimmon site) 

·  Officers confirmed that the provision of a dog waste litter bin on the Sandgate Lane footpath could be provided if the applicant was agreeable, though it was not necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  A number of Members expressed disappointment at the design of the house types suggesting they were bland

·  There appeared to be some elevations which suggested a single window and in some cases a blank wall, could the design be revisited so it would not look so “dreary”

·  The adjacent site was granted on appeal so it would be unrealistic to consider refusing the application

In summing up the Chair thanked the Developers for their attendance and asked if the design issues raised by Members could be looked at again, but in general Members appeared to be supportive of the proposals.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report and noting the request for the provision of a dog waste litter bin (and with the inclusion of any other amendments/additions which he might consider appropriate) and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following obligations:

·  Provision of Affordable Housing (7 units).

·  On site landscaping / green space to be made available and maintained by the developer and retained for the lifetime of the development.

·  Employment and training initiatives in relation to the construction process.

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