Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for 49 no. residential dwellings (use class c3) with associated internal access road, car parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for 41 dwellings and 8 apartments (Use Class C3) with associated internal access, car parking and landscaping at land off Moorhouse Avenue and Old Lane, Beeston.

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 scheme consisted of 49 units which would be 2 or 3 bedrooms.

·  There would be vehicular access from Moorhouse Avenue.

·  The applicant intended to retain ownership of the properties and operate them as a Private Rented Sector (PRS) scheme.

·  There were protected trees to the front of the site.

·  There had not been any objections to the application.

·  The principal of residential development had been approved by outline planning consent. 

·  The proposed layout had been designed in consultation with planning officers and protected trees would be retained.

·  House types were displayed and considered to be of an acceptable design.

·  Three of the properties did not meet guidance with regards to garden sizes.  All units complied with minimum space standards.

·  There would be two parking spaces per property with exception of the apartments and condition would ensure each unit had an electric charging point.

·  The District Valuer had concluded that a full policy compliant scheme would not be viable for the PRS model but a contribution of £135,000 could be made.  It was suggested £18,000 towards affordable housing, £107,000 towards greenspace and £10,000 for bus stop improvements.  These sums could be shared differently.

·  Trees that had been recommended for removal were of poor quality, there would be a full landscaping scheme with new tree planting.

·  There would be a condition to ensure 10% renewable energy.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

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

·  It was the responsibility of an applicant to demonstrate that policy compliance was not viable and this would be referred to the District Valuer to make an independent assessment.

·  Rental costs for 2 bedroom properties would range from £600 to 650 per month and 3 bedroom properties would be £750 to £800.

·  Concern regarding the lack of affordable housing on site and insufficient parking spaces for the apartments.

·  The price of the rents took account of maintenance and insurance and also void properties.

·  A full tree survey had been carried out and there would be a condition for additional tree planting.

·  Concern that the site was allocated for housing if it was not viable for greenspace and affordable housing contributions.

·  Due to the PRS model, full planning gain contributions were not viable.

·  If the site was developed as houses for sale, the site would be viable and meet all policy requirements with regard to planning contributions.

·  There would be no on-site greenspace provision.

·  Trees would be replaced at a ratio of three planted for every one removed.

·  Concern that the rents were not affordable.

·  Concern that the application did not meet policy requirements in relation to garden sizes, green space and affordable housing.

·  A policy compliant site would be more desirable.

 A motion was made to contrary to the officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that it was not policy compliant in relation to garden sizes, greenspace and affordable housing contributions.  This motion was seconded and subsequently voted upon.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow officers to take the application back to next available Panel to seek agreement for detailed reasons for refusal. Based upon the application not being policy compliant with regard in particular the PRS model not allowing provision of affordable housing.  Reference was also made to Greenspace and Garden sizes.