Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the development of 152 affordable dwellings (C3) with associated access and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the development of 152 affordable dwellings (C3) with associated access and landscaping at the Horsforth Campus, Calverley Lane, Horsforth.

The application was previously presented to Plans Panel in October 2020 when it was deferred as follows:

‘That the development of the site be accepted in principle but further discussions on design are to take place’

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted:

·  There was extant approval for up to 70 dwellings on the central portion of the site.

·  Revised site plan – this had made improvements with more open space between dwellings and throughout the site with more areas for open play.

·  CGI images of how the proposals would look were shown including the apartment block. These images also showed the site layout including house types, boundary treatments, parking areas, play areas and open space.

·  It was felt that concerns previously made by the Panel had been addressed. There had been reductions in the amount of highways space, increase of open space and pedestrian areas.  There had also been alterations to the apartment block and house types.

·  There had been some late representations made by Horsforth Ward Councillors but these did not raise any new material planning considerations in relation to the application.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

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

·  Types of trees to be planted were still to be decided as part of the final landscaping plan, but due consideration would be given to these being species that were of an appropriate size and would not become over-dominant.

·  There would not be a formal cycle way on the path round the site so it would not be lit.  It was more intended for the surrounding pathways to be for pedestrian use and ‘with ‘natural’ surveillance from the surrounding dwellings.

·  Pavement parking was always a possibility in such types of development layout – but there were a number of laybys to try and reduce this.  Road widths would also allow for cars to park without using the pathway.

·  Minimum garage sizes should allow space to fit cars.  There were only seven proposed houses on site with garages.

·  Footways would be two metres wide.

·  With regard to meeting Policies EN1 and EN2, it was reported that there would be photovoltaic panels to all properties and also electric vehicle charging points.  There would be conditions to the application to ensure it was policy compliant.

·  It was felt that the contemporary style offered by the use of flat roof dormers on a number of the house types provided a more unusual, distinctive approach compared to the inclusion of pitched dormers.

·  Residents would make financial contributions towards the management of outside areas and the s106 Agreement would ensure that Stonewater themselves would be managing the greenspace in the long-term as opposed to a third party management company.

·  Sustainability issues with regards to policies EN1 and EN2 had been presented to the Panel in October 2020 and included information relating to water usage, solar panels and electric charging points for vehicles.  In this respect, the application was compliant with current policies.

·  Further issues to be taken up with the architect would include windows on the E2 house type and the massing of the apartment block.

·  Concern that the buildings were of a soulless and drab appearance.

·  Concern that there had only been small changes to the design and layout.

·  Position of the apartment block – there had been previous concern that this should be moved but there had not been a change in the positioning.  Due to the constraints of the site with relation to roads and parking it was not possible to re-position the apartment block.  There had been changes to the design to soften the shape.  It was felt that there was still further work that could be done on the design of the apartment block.

·  The apartment block was not aimed at a specific age group.  It had been situated at the entrance to the site as a feature.

·  The site was 100% affordable housing which may limit what amendments could be made to the scheme if it was to remain viable with the 100% affordable housing provision.

·  The layout was wavy in places to protect existing trees, and with elongated access roads due to the topography of the site overall.

·  The siting of the pumping station was due to gravity and not flooding issues.

·  The three character areas that were proposed reflected surrounding areas in Horsforth.

·  Play areas – there would be more informal play areas and places for natural play (e.g. trim trails, boulders etc.) rather than a formal playground.

·  The CGI images did not show the finer design details.

·  The open greenspace would be open to all members of the public.

Members were invited to comment on the application. The following was raised:

·  There has not been a great deal of improvement.  Just a few small tweaks around the edges, particularly in relation to the design.

·  The design was poor and not of good enough quality for Leeds. It was acknowledged that Members could not take it upon themselves to design schemes proposed ‘by Committee”, but felt that a better quality design was needed to adequately reflect the exceptional quality of dwellings in the surrounding area.

·  Concern that there would be a substantial cost to residents for maintenance of the open spaces and play areas. While the provision of 100% affordable housing was therefore appreciated, there was the concern that living on-site could become unaffordable due to the maintenance and upkeep charges.

·  The changes that had been made were an improvement but the overall scheme was not good enough.

·  The massing of the apartment block was too much for the position.  It either needed to be moved or lowered.

·  The CGI images did not do the design justice and the layout and open play areas were a good feature as were the house types.

·  There had been an improvement with more space between houses.

·  There was room for aesthetic improvements but the proposals would provide a pleasant area for family living.

·  There was a need for further discussion regarding the proposals and the application should be deferred again.

·  Concern regarding the maintenance of open space and any unadopted highways and who would do this.

·  Concern regarding the potential size of the pumping station – it was reported that this would be hidden mainly underground and landscaped above.

·  Development of the site was welcomed and the principle of use for housing was accepted, as there was now going to be no potential for the college building to be restored etc.  However, it was hoped that a more exceptional development could be brought forward.

A motion was made and seconded to defer the application for further discussion regarding design following the concerns of the Panel.  It was also requested that further information be provided with regard to Policies EN1 and EN2.

The Area Planning Manager summarised the discussion.  Members were reminded that the application had previously been agreed in principle with a deferral to resolve issues surrounding design.  Issues that had already been resolved and voted on at the October 2020 Panel meeting were not to be opened for debate again.  Although there was some support for the scheme there was still concern regarding the scale, design and massing of the apartment block and further design improvements were desired.  Issues regarding maintenance and sustainability were not covered by the deferral but there was still an opportunity to bring further information on these to the Panel.

Members were asked to mention specific design improvements they would like to see.  These included the massing, scale, design and citing of the apartment block; certain house types; parking arrangements; footpaths/cycle routes and the road layout.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for provision of further information and discussion on aspects as noted above, to be brought back to Panel once these had been progressed further with the applicant.