Agenda item

Position Statement - Application 18/04343/RM - land at Church Lane, Adel

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for residential development (Use Class 3) for 100 dwellings and land reserved for primary school with construction of vehicular access from Otley Road to the north west and Ash Road to the south, areas of open space, landscaping – at Church Lane, Adel.

 

Minutes:

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters application following outline approval for 100 dwellings (Use Class C3). The outline consent also involved land be reserved for a school with playing fields but these do not form part of this reserve matters application.

 

Earlier in the day Members had attended a site visit. Photographs and plans were shown throughout the presentation.

 

Members were informed of the following points:

·  The application is for 100 dwellings, two of which will be apartments with 98 houses of which 35 are proposed as affordable houses;

·  The proposal is for a mix of 2 to 5 bedroom properties built of red and buff coloured brick;

·  The pumping station to be located to the northern part of the site which would be no more than 2 metres high and would be surrounded by a 1 metre high fence with a hedge and landscaping. This proposal has been suggested by the developer over the use of attenuation ponds;

·  The site would also have an underground water storage tank which would be covered with grass;

·  Landscaping to the south of the site would remain and new landscaping would be added to the north of the site between the new development Centurion Fields and the farmer’s fields;

·  The application was first submitted in August 2018, since then the application has been revised numerous times. The application has received a number of objections including objections from Ward Members and Adel Neighbourhood Forum these are listed at point 6.1 of the submitted report;

·  This plan proposes the same access as the previous plan;

·  There is a public right of way and it has been suggested that this should remain. However, it is noted that this should be accessible for all therefore may require to be made wider with an all-weather surface;

·  The church to the east of the site is a grade I listed building and sits on the border of the green belt;

·  Landscaping is included in the proposal with a public open space and a buffer to the north of the site which leads into the conservation area;

·  Some of the gardens are too small and the houses are too close together with some less than 14 metres between them;

·  There are a number of trees with protection order, however it is proposed that some of these would be removed for access. 

 

Members were also informed that the proposal falls short in relation to the sizes of the smaller properties in particular to the provision of 2 and 3 bedroom affordable property units. It was noted that most of these units do not comply with Policy H9 and the national space standards. Members also heard that there is a shortage of 2 bed properties in this area for those wishing to downsize but remain in Adel. Most of the proposed 2 bed properties would be affordable housing on this site and there were concerns that those wishing to downsize would not qualify to occupy affordable housing.

 

Paragraph 5.1 of the report was highlighted which set out a number of concerns raised by officers.

 

The Chair informed the Panel that she had received a letter from Cllr. Barry Anderson which set out his concerns for the development. He had requested that the letter was read out to the Panel. However, the Chair had read the letter and provided a summary for the Panel. It had been agreed that Cllr. Anderson would speak at the meeting in his role as Ward Member.

 

Mark Jones the agent attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  This is a 2 year old outline permission which has no conditions attached to housing mix or space standards;

·  This site is allocated for housing development in the Leeds SAP;

·  The developer has negotiated with officers on the proposals for the site;

·  The developers has tried to address the issue of the smaller gardens and there are very few small gardens;

·  The developer was happy to provide a wider footpath with a surface of the Members choice.

 

Cllr Anderson and a member of Adel Neighbourhood Forum attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following concerns:

·  There was a requirement for more 2 bedroom properties available on the open market for older people who wish to stay in the area;

·  Historic England have said that there should be no development close to the site of the listed church. However the proposal sites the pumping station in this area, and there will also be fencing erected for the playing fields of the proposed school;

·  Attenuation ponds would be preferred to the pumping station;

·  The public right of way needs to be kept in a natural state and the styles which are said to be medieval need to be kept also;

·  It is believed that more of the trees under TPO will be removed and currently a resident is looking into this issue;

·  The developers of Centurion Fields had reluctantly added a belt of trees, however these are now in poor health;

·  The developers should have considered the area and proposed less housing and larger gardens which would be more in keeping of the area and satisfy the national space standards;

·  Would prefer the school moved and the land handed over to the people of Adel;

·  The developers need to consider the Climate Emergency declared by the Council and include solar panels and electric charging points.

 

Members’ lengthy discussions focused on the following points:

·  Housing mix with a requirement for more 2 and 3 bedroom properties on the open market with the addition of bungalows and more larger family homes supplied for affordable housing;

·  Design and green space standards should be adhered to. It was the view of Members that the design was dull and boring and not in keeping with the character of the area;

·  The location of the affordable houses should be ‘pepper potted’ throughout the site not bunched together;

·  Climate emergency needs to be addressed by the developers in relation to the addition of solar panels and electric charging points;

·  Members were of the view that attenuation ponds would be better for this location and for the climate;

·  The need for the public right of way to be accessible for all encouraging people to walk and cycle throughout the year;

·  Need to address the parking within the development to include space for drop off and pick up at the proposed school;

 

Members received legal advice in relation to the application of policy requirements to reserved matters applications where there is a lack of condition requiring compliance with policy at outline permission stage.

 

Members were disappointed that the developers would try to use a loop hole to deliver a development of what they consider substandard houses which were not in keeping with the beauty and quality of existing homes in the area.

 

At the conclusion of discussions Members views were sought on the following:

·  Housing mix

·  Size of dwellings

·  Location of affordable housing

·  Layout and design

·  The proposed pumping station

·  An accessible route for cyclists and pedestrians through the site

·  Highway matters

·  Landscaping and biodiversity areas

·  Climate emergency

 

RESOLVED – To provide the following comments on specific questions:

1.  Do Members support the proposed housing mix?

Members did not support the proposed housing mix and noted that LCC has had a consistent policy requirement over a number of years, that required that the housing mix should cover the entire range of housing based on need in the area

 

2.  Do Members support the size of the proposed properties?

Members considered many of the properties were too small and that the Council has a long policy of trying to meet the National Housing Standards. Members noted that the applicant was falling short on standards in relation to affordable housing.

 

3.  Do Members support the proposed location of affordable housing on the site?

Members were unhappy that the affordable housing units were ‘lumped together’; they would prefer them to be ‘pepper potted’ throughout the site

 

4.  Do Members support the layout and design of the development with particular regard to planning for heathy lifestyles?

Members considered that the layout was poor, the quality of the design of house types was also poor, and reflected a pattern book development. The properties lacked character and do not respond to context. The garden sizes must comply with guidance and be policy compliant and the same applies to the space of the dwellings

 

5.  Do Members support the principle of a pumping station and its location?

Members wanted a better understanding of what advantages a pumping station has over an attenuation pond as they were of the view that such a pond would be better for biodiversity.

 

6.  Do Members support the provision of a 3m wide accessible route for pedestrians and cyclists through the site?

Members were comfortable that the Western section of the path can be made to be a hard surface. However, they wanted the applicant to look at providing a softer treatment on the Eastern section so that it is well drained but has a more natural look. Members requested that the path be made accessible for all and be ‘pram friendly’. The stone style at the end of the path should also be retained and an accessible path created to the side of it.

 

7.  Do members have any comments in relation to highway layout and safety?

Members had no concerns in general with highways issues. However, within the proposals they wished to have a turning head near the site of the proposed school and also proposed laybys for school drop off and collection, and not rely on, on street parking.

 

8.  Do Members support the proposed landscaping and biodiversity areas on the site?

Members requested more landscaping to the periphery of the site, particularly to the south where existing new landscaping has not established itself well. Members remained unconvinced that a case had been made for a pumping station or indeed its location at the east of the beck.

 

9.  Do Members support the scheme in relation to climate emergency matters?

Members were of the view that the applicant needs to be more ambitious regarding climate change and not rely on work elsewhere, but look at a package for the whole site in relation to its carbon footprint. Members suggested that all properties should be provided with solar panels and charging points be provided at a ratio of one point per parking space.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: