Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for 87 dwellings with associated access and public open space.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application regarding an application for 87 dwellings with associated access and public open space.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

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

·  The site was to the west of Churwell and was situated between housing and the motorway.

·  The site currently had a farmhouse and outbuildings that were no longer in use.

·  Access to the site was shown.

·  There had been objections from local Ward Councillors, Morley Town and 58 further letters of objection.  There had also been objections from Leeds Ramblers Group regarding proposed footpath diversions.  Main themes of objection included access to the site, the local highway network and access to local services.

·  The proposal would contribute to housing development targets in Leeds.

·  The scheme had been devised to minimise noise disturbance from the motorway and the layout of properties had been designed to reflect this.  This required the houses to

·  Noise levels had been modelled and all fell below 60 dB which was perceived to be below the severe limit but twelve properties would be over the recommended 55 dB limit in the rear garden areas.  Adjacent housing sites had a higher proportion of properties over the 55 dB limit.  There had not been any objection from Environmental Health with regard to this.  Mitigating factors included landscaping and fencing which would reduce noise pollution.

·  There would be seven standard house types on the development and examples of the elevations were shown.  There would be mix of materials used across the site. 

·  Distances between properties met standards for living guidelines.

·  The A6 type of housing was the only one that did not meet space standards which was below by 1.2 metres but on balance felt to be acceptable.

·  It was noted that the access arrangements did not meet street design guidance in terms of numbers of vehicles but there was not a suitable alternative access point.  There would be a traffic regulation order to that prevented on street parking to mitigate this.

·  Due to cumulative impact issues there would be a contribution towards improvements at the junction of the A643 and A6110.

·  The Nature Conservation Team had recommended conditions that would be included should the application be approved.

·  The site was a challenging site due to its proximity to the motorway and changes in levels.  It was felt that the generous areas of landscaping and greenspace would offer protection from noise and there was not considered to be a risk to highway safety. There were full affordable housing contributions and it was felt on balance that the application should be recommended for approval.

A local Town Councillor and a representative from the Leeds Ramblers Group addressed the Panel with concerns and objections the application.  These included the following:

·  Due to the numbers of houses already built in recent years and on other ongoing developments, the contribution to make improvements at the road junction would have little impact.  Traffic already queued for three quarters of a mile on Churwell Road during peak periods.

·  The access road would be feeding 467 houses which was over the guidelines of 300.  This was felt to be unacceptable.

·  The proposed restrictions for on street parking would affect existing residents who only had one parking space.

·  There was not enough provision for school places in the area.

·  Concern that the block of affordable housing would be positioned in order to create a noise barrier.

·  Levels of pollution from the motorway would be high across the site.

·  Diversions to rights of way across the site and concern that the conditions in the report did not refer to rights of way or ask the developer to make any contributions to improvements.  It was reported that the applicant was in discussion with the Rights of Way team to establish a satisfactory route through the site.  A layout had been agreed since the publication of the report.  There would be additional conditions to the application regarding this.  There had not been a request for a contribution towards improvements.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  He highlighted the following:

·  The site was not green belt and was considered to be a sustainable location.

·  The impact of the development was mitigated by conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

·  The plans had been developed in close liaison with planning officers to make the best use of a constrained site and would deliver much needed housing including on site affordable housing.

·  The plans had support of planning officers and had considered the concerns expressed by local residents.

·  Further to concerns regarding the positioning of affordable housing and space standards, it was reported that there could be some flexibility with this.

·  Concerns regarding noise from the motorway – internal amenity would not be affected and outside levels would be below critical thresholds.

·  The site was in an accessible location with public transport links.

·  There had been surveys for pollution by the applicant and the Local Authority and there was no issue with regard to this.

·  Modifications had been made which included minimal changes to the existing rights of way.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  The possibility of working with local Ward Councillors regarding the rights of way and potential for funding towards improvements.

o  Consideration could be given to separating affordable housing units so they aren’t all clustered together.

o  Garden sizes met Neighbourhoods for Living guidelines with the exception of a few belonging to the A6 type houses.  It was reported that repositioning of these could be considered which may address this.

o  There would be a mix of open market housing and affordable housing that were closest to the motorway and the higher noise levels.

o  Provision of affordable housing in 2 and 3 bedroom units.

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

·  It was not possible to put a second access into the site and it was felt that on balance the access arrangements would not support a reason for refusal.

·  The inclusion of traffic regulation orders to restrict on street parking would prevent interference with sight lines and would not necessarily prevent people from parking in front of their own homes.

·  Further to concern regarding noise pollution, it was reported that noise level guidelines were for guidance and planning merit also had to be considered.  Acoustic barriers would be installed where feasible and acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation would be included on some dwellings.  There was only a marginal increase above the recommended levels in some of the garden areas.  Due to level changes in the site and land ownership issues it was not possible to protect the whole site with an acoustic barrier.

·  There would be consultation with residents who would be affected by traffic regulation orders.  Objections to these could be over-ruled but suitable compromise would be sought where possible.

·  Noise pollution from the motorway was not classed as a statutory nuisance.  Current traffic levels would have to double to give an increase of 3dB.  Further noise monitoring could be done following the development of the site.

·  The inclusion of door locks that confirm to Part Q of building regulations.

·  There had been several amendments following the first submission of the application.  These have included the reduction of dwellings, layout, density and design.

·  Noise levels would be acceptable within internal areas of the dwellings.

·  Further concern regarding access to the site.

·  A proposal was made to defer the application for further negotiation with the application with regards to siting of affordable housing; sizes of properties that did not meet guidelines; noise pollution and mitigating measures; and garden sizes.

·  Members agreed that the site was suitable for housing.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for the following:

·  Addition of informative referring to locks on doors to confirm to Part ‘Q’ of building regulations.

·  Addition of noise monitoring condition to ensure that post construction and prior to first occupation Noise levels within and to exterior of properties are as referred to in the Noise assessment.

·  Negotiate enlargement of A6 house types to ensure 1.2sqm larger to comply with Space standards.

·  Negotiate ‘Pepper Potting’ of affordable housing.

·  Negotiate amendment to affordable house types to be more representative of all house types on estate.

·  Negotiate guidance compliant Gardens sizes on A6 house types.

(Councillor T Leadley withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and voting on this application)