Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets put details of an application for the erection of 437 dwellings with new roads, open space, landscaping, drainage and associated works at Radial Park, Manston Lane, Leeds, LS15 8ST

 

 

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which provided a Position Statement in respect of an application for the erection of 437 dwellings with new road, open space, landscaping, drainage and associated works at Radial Park, Manston Lane, Leeds, LS15 8ST.

 

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

 

Both the planning case officer and the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 

·  Site / location/ context

·  Site lies within a valley

·  Former industrial site, some contamination of the land

·  The site excludes the Barnbow Social Club

·  Masterplan demonstrates connectivity throughout the site

·  Areas of greenspace throughout the development

·  Newt pond on site

·  The site is currently undergoing remedial works, it is understood that the final phase of these works (grouting to stabilise the ground) has been commenced and work on conditions discharge submissions is still on-going

·  A bund is located at the northern end of the site

·  Access into the development is from Manston Lane via three access points

·  The proposal is to erect 437 dwellings, variation of house types, heights and number of bedrooms

·  The site is being developed by two house builders: Strata at the eastern portion of the site and Redrow would develop the western portion

·  Houses will be constructed using a mix of artificial stone and brick (Red and buff) with render present to some elevations

·  Issues of viability due to “abnormal costs”

·  Affordable Housing 7.5% (based on a financial viability assessment)

 

The Planning Case Officer reported the receipt of two further representations from members of the public. One suggested that the provision of affordable housing led to issues of anti-social behaviour and further affordable housing provision should be resisted. The other suggests that the submitted viability assessment was inaccurate and so there should be the provision of more affordable housing on-site.

 

Members raised the following questions:

 

·  Was it correct that one of the proposed house types did not meet the Council’s adopted space standards

·  It had been suggested that the overall design on the masterplan is of “calmness”, but how has this conclusion been reached

·  There appeared to be a number of long straight roads throughout the development, but how was it envisaged that speed would be restricted here to 20mph to avoid vehicles “racing”

·  This was an intensive layout, did the development meet the Greenspace Standards and were the garden size also in accordance with policy requirements

·  It was disappointing that the full provision of affordable housing could not be delivered, there was some abnormal costs associated with the development but had the developers paid too much for the land

·  The developers had contributed to the Manston Lane Link Road, but were there other schemes in the area where developers had not contributed to the MLLR

·  What was the future relationship with and plans for Barnbow Social Club

·  Could some variety be given to what is an otherwise very geometric design, such as via additions to the roofspace to provide variety

·  Could Members be made aware of the species of trees to be planted

·  The greenspace and public realm how would it be maintained

·  Could the Council adopt the greenspace and be responsible for maintenance

·  Members queried why there were 3 highway access points onto Manston Lane

·  Was there a cycling route throughout the site

 

In responding to the issues raised, officers and the applicant’s representatives said:

 

·  Members were informed that the submission of revised plans had corrected the house size anomaly. All properties would meet the Council’s adopted space standards.

·  Members were informed that “calmness” was considered to come from the varied house types, which bring sensible variety, provide subtle set backs, no common building lines, and shallow curves within the site.

·  In terms of long straight roads, there would be a 20 mph restriction throughout the development for residential safety, but there were no physical traffic calming measures proposed in addition there were no physical traffic calming measures except some build-out elements but ensuring that the carriageway remains sufficiently wide enough to allow for bus use.

·  Members were informed that greenspace and garden size was in accordance with revised Policy G4 (onsite Greenspace), appearing to even slightly exceed policy requirements in certain instances.

·  The DV informed Members that the price paid by the developer for a site was not used to test viability. Instead a benchmark land value was calculated to reflect the market value for the site at the time of the appraisal. The current benchmark land value was £260k per acre, using the NPPG’s guidance on how this land value is to be calculated.

·  There have been considerable costs incurred by the developer here in terms of remediation works.

·  The East Team leader said that contributing to the MLLR was an historic decision for the developers of the site. Other developers could have been asked to contribute to the scheme, but the MLLR was already planned and its delivery secured. Instead other developers had been prevented from commencing further phases of development until the MLLR was in operation.

·  The DV confirmed that the MLLR contribution figure had been interrogated and corrected as part of his assessment of the viability appraisal, with the correct cost now being reflected in terms of the developer’s contribution.

·  Members were informed that Barnbow Social Club would remain and its future was dependent on the landowner, but there had been discussions on this.

·  Members were informed that a full list of tree species to be used would be supplied to Members

·  Members were informed that a Management Company would provide the maintenance for the greenspace and public realm areas via an annual fee to residents, which would be as per each individual unit’s contract

·  Greenspace and public open space needs to be maintained, so the most appropriate method for securing this is via the Management Company and maintenance fee option.  If the land was to be adopted by the Council an upfront maintenance payment for a 10 year period would be required, which was a large commitment from the developer and could adversely impact on viability.

·  The applicant’s representative said there were various reasons why 3 highway access points were proposed: (i) Dilution of traffic exiting onto Manston Lane and so reduction of congestion, (ii) Shorter build programme for the developers, so less disruption in the construction process and a faster build-out rate and (iii) Would assist in the servicing of the site.

·  Members were informed a cycling route ran along Manston Lane then into the site alongside the bund, there was also a wider ambition for a cycle route to Scholes.

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  Members were generally supportive of the 3 access points onto Manston Lane.

·  Could the size of the garages be of sufficient dimensions to accommodate a modern car. 

·  The layout appeared to be very rigid, could some curves be introduced and could the roof-scape be varied, the overall site needs to be more attractive.

·  Could further consideration be given as to how greenspace and public realm could be maintained, the use of a landscape Management Company who charged an annual fee to residents was a grossly unfair mechanism.  Future residents should at least be made aware of the costs they would incur by their solicitors before purchase and occupation.

·  In response to this, the City Centre Team Leader confirmed that the wider point on options for managing the public open space would be noted.  However, the rates that would be charged to future occupiers was not strictly a planning issue for consideration by the Panel at this time.

·  It was suggested that more replacement tree planting would be welcomed. The landscape scheme needs to overall be of a good quality, particularly in terms of boundary treatment and providing a “buffer” to the railway line with mature trees planted.

·  There had been some degree of naivety around the viability of the site, but the DV’s report had given transparency and significantly aided understanding of the position.

·  The future of the Barnbow Social Club was an important issue and some definitive responses from the developer are expected on this.  The social and historical importance of the Barnbow Social Club is not to be under-estimated.

·  Members were supportive of the affordable housing provision proposed.  The suggestion that affordable housing led to issues of anti-social behaviour was not supported.

 

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback:

 

·  Overall, Members were satisfied that the development accords with the housing policies of the development plan.

·  Members were satisfied that the identified impact upon heritage assets was outweighed by the public benefits of the development (housing delivery).

·  Members were of the view that the layout and design of dwellings within the two portions of the development, and the relationship to neighbouring developments could be improved.

·  Members were satisfied that the development adequately protects the amenity of existing neighbours and provides a good standard of amenity for future occupants.

·  Members considered that 3 access points onto Manston Lane was acceptable and needed.

·  Members were satisfied that a commuted sum for off-site provision was acceptable in lieu of replacement playing pitch provision on site, subject to the agreement of Ward Members on the final strategy.

·  Members were satisfied that the development provided an adequate quantum of replacement planting, taking into account the constraints of the current layout.

·  Members were satisfied that the development sought to adequately address sustainability and climate change matters in light of the Climate Emergency but there was also an ambition to go beyond the existing policies within the Core Strategy.

·  Members were satisfied that priority had been given to the right matters when considering the viability of the development.

·  Members were satisfied that officers had given appropriate weight to each material consideration, and that at present the balance fell in favour of approval, subject to the resolution of those matters raised by Members today and the outstanding issues highlighted in the submitted report.

 

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and contribution. He suggested that the maintenance of the public open space provision was a real concern to Members and asked if further consideration could be given to this issue.

 

RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted.