Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 70 dwellings and associated infrastructure.

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of 70 dwellings and associated infrastructure on land at Sugar Hill Close, Oulton Drive, Wordsworth Drive, Oulton Leeds.

 

The application had been considered at the meeting of the South and West plans Panel held in May 2019 when it had been deferred for the following:

 

• More detail around design quality and layout.
• Assessment  of some of the proposed garden sizes /depths
• More information on the impact on the existing community including from the developer on the mitigation they have considered e.g.  timescales/phasing  for redevelopment
• More consideration of the overall effect in sustainability terms e.g. energy costs/ savings involved in demolition and rebuild compared to refurbishment.
• Review of the actual housing mix need in the area (is there need for as many 4 bed houses here?)
• More information of the heritage value and significance of the existing houses

 

The Chair reported that Panel Members had received additional correspondence from objectors in the lead up to the meeting.  This information had been submitted to officers and would be summarised as part of the presentation of the application.

 

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

 

·  Additional representations from objectors included the following:

o  There had been a further 46 objections, a paper petition with 882 signatures and an online petition with 2,513 signatures.

o  The existing properties could be renovated to achieve better energy ratings.

o  Refurbishment of the existing properties would be a more environmentally friendly option.

o  There was no solar energy provision.

o  New build would create more waste/

o  The equality impact assessment findings had not been shared with residents.

o  The proposed houses would be smaller than existing houses.

o  There had not been sufficient notice for this meeting.

o  There had been no response with regard to the impact on residents and information requested last time the application was considered had not been provided.

·  The proposals would see the demolition of 71 existing properties with the development of 70 new properties and infrastructure.

·  Changes to the proposals since the application was previously considered included repositioning of houses for improved views, additional hedge planting, significant changes to appearance including different materials and darker cladding and a mix of hipped and gable roofs.

·  There would be wheelchair accessible properties and all properties met or exceeded space standards.

·  Affordable housing would be ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the site.

·  There had been changes to layout to prevent any irregular shaped gardens. 14% of gardens would be marginally smaller than guideline sizes but this was mitigated by extending the depth and width.  These smaller garden sizes were not considered to be harmful to residential amenity.

·  The revised landscape plan included additional tree planting.

·  With regard to impact on community and whether Leeds City Council had discharged its duty under the public sector equality duty, it was reported that for those on regulated and assured tenancies there was a requirement on the landlord to provide a similar property in a similar location.  Further the landlord had offered offer two year fixed tenancies to all assured shorthold tenants and phasing of the development so that those who were to be rehoused on site would not have to be decanted in the interim.

·  The Council (Separate to the LPA) was considering a local lettings policy which would specifically support existing residents to be re-housed.

·  The majority of the residents had lived there less than 5 years and the community was felt to be transitory in its nature.  There were however a number of long standing residents and there was a good possibility for these to be re-housed in the proposed new properties.

·  Members were shown pictures of the defects and disrepair in some of the properties.  Should these be refurbished, due to the scale of the works, residents would have to move out while these were completed in any event.

·  Refurbishment would improve the energy efficiency of the properties but these would still not be as efficient as new build properties.  This had been weighed against the carbon cost and waste caused by demolition and rebuilding.

·  Housing mix – there was previous concern regarding how many 4 bedroom houses.  These had now been reduced and replaced by more 2/3 bedroom properties.

·  Heritage – The estate had been assessed as having only local significance.  There are examples of similar properties that permission for demolition had been granted upon appeal.

·  There had been objections based on climate change and the impact that the development would have.  Whilst there had been studies which had shown there could be a smaller carbon footprint via refurbishment this had not been carried out on Airey style properties.  

 

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

 

·  The break up of a close knit community.  This has had a profound effect and caused ill health due to the stress.  Lots of residents were public sector workers on low incomes who could easily access employment from their homes.

·  Leeds as a child friendly city – children were afraid that they would have to move away from their friends and schools.

·  Heritage – Leeds Civic Trust had held heritage open days at the estate with visitors from far and wide.  These properties were the last ones in Leeds which had connection to Airey.

·  Declaration of Climate Emergency – rebuilding would have greater impact on the carbon footprint than rebuilding.  To approve the application would be a betrayal of this declaration.

·  If there had been even basic maintenance of the properties by the landlord they would have been far more energy efficient.  There had been a managed neglect of the properties.

·  Approving the application would add 60 families to an already overstretched housing list and also go against its claim to be a child friendly city and the declaration of climate emergency.

·  Only basic repairs had been done to the properties over the past 18 years.  There had been some fitted with partial double glazing but this work had stopped.  It was difficult to get repairs done via the landlord.

 

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel. The following was highlighted:

 

·  There had been close working with officers to address Members concern regarding housing mix, layout and open space.

·  There had been a reduction in the number of 4 bedroom properties to increase the number of 2 and 3 bedroom properties.

·  There would be a mix of hipped and gabled roof forms to recreate existing characteristics of the site.

·  There was a reduction in parking at the frontage of properties.

·  Reconfiguration of the layout had removed awkward shaped gardens.

·  Landscaping – as many trees as possible would be retained along with new hedging.

·  There were changes to materials and features including cladding to replicate features of the Airey homes. This would create a high quality residential development.

·  The proposed development exceeded accessibility requirements.

·  Local significance of the housing was recognising and this would be mitigated with the provision of a historic archive.

·  There would be contributions to carbon efficiency with more energy efficient homes that would provide more affordable energy for residents.

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

o  Approximately six areas of trees would be lost.

o  It had not been possible to find someone to provide detailed information on the carbon footprint difference between new build and refurbishment on this estate.

o   Policy EN1 and generation of 10% of energy from renewable sources.  There would be a condition to show how this could be achieved.  In response, it was felt more detailed information should have been available at this stage.

o  The applicant employed a local property management company to carry out repairs to the properties to ensure they remained habitable.  Due to the defects occurring in some of the properties, repair was not a long term solution.

o  With regards to the Council’s Climate Emergency declaration questions were asked to how the development could address issues such as fuel poverty and a reduction in the carbon footprint of the development.  It was reported that the applicant had worked with officers to ensure that all statutory conditions would be met.  Details would need to be submitted prior to building works commencing.

o  Due to the defects in the building there were ongoing reviews by structural engineers and all were currently safe.  There was not a finite timescale on the lifetime of the properties but they would eventually become uninhabitable.  Due to the severity of the defects, should these become any worse, repair work would require tenants to move out while works were done.

 

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

 

·  For the Council to take ownership of the existing properties there would need to be a full options appraisal to study the condition of the properties and the costs of repair before considering whether they were viable.

·  With regards to the Councils declaration of climate emergency, any decision taken by the Panel today would have to be compliant with current policy.  A further report was due to Executive Board before the end of the year regarding Climate Emergency and would have a wider action plan in respect to planning aspects.

·  Waiting list times to re-house tenants would vary but would likely be two to three years for a 2/3 bedroom property in Rothwell. 

·  There was limited expertise within Planning Services with regard to assessing whether a development meets policy requirements EN1 and EN2.  A condition could be added to any permission for further evidence to be provided via a verification statement for which external advice could be sought.

·  Concern that there had not been enough done to support this community.

·  Would refurbishment damage the heritage of the properties?

·  Climate emergency – concern that officers had provided information and not the applicant and that there was a higher carbon footprint to demolish and rebuild.

·  The proposals did not fit with the Council’s ambitions following the Climate Emergency declaration.

·  Concern regarding the loss of affordable housing and the potential impact on provision of Council housing.

·  Concern regarding the length of time to re-house existing tenants.

·  Concern that policies EN1 and EN2 would not be satisfied.

·  Concern regarding the timescales involved to re-house existing residents and this was wholly disproportionate.

·  Weight should be given to the impact on community and the loss of affordable rented housing of which there was already a shortage across the city.

·  The need for reasons for refusal of the application to be based on planning reasons.

·  Refurbishment would be beneficial for the community and environment.

·  Some garden sizes were too small and therefore not policy compliant.

 

Views of the Panel led to a motion being moved, seconded and carried to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

·  That the proposals did not reflect Paragraph 89(b), 9 and 91(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (promoting, healthy and safe communities)

·  That there would be a disproportionate impact on the community having regard to Public Sector Equality Duty.

·  Not all garden sizes met guideline requirements.

 

Members were given a summary of the reasons for refusal.

 

RESOLVED – Application refused for the following reasons.  Detailed wording deferred to officers to draft.

 

1.  Given the particular circumstances of this application, and having specific regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty, it is considered that the  adverse impacts of granting permission, namely the potential and disproportionate harm that would result to the existing local community, particularly to those with protected characteristics relating to age and disability, through the loss of their existing homes and the dissipation of the community, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the development contrary to the General Policy of the Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) and paragraphs 8(b), 9 and 91(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) which are material considerations that outweigh the Local Plan.

 

 

2.  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed layout and quantum of development has resulted in a number of gardens that are considered to be deficient in size and/or depth which will lead to poor amenity space provision when taking into account other factors such as orientation and tree cover.  This will result in harm to residential amenity by failing to provide adequate private external space for families to use.  This is contrary to policies GP5 and BD5 of the UDP, and to guidance contained within SPG 13 Neighbourhoods for Living.