Agenda item

Application 21-07156-RM - Nook Farm, Haigh Moor Road, Tingley, Wakefield, WF3 1EF

To receive and consider the attached report regarding a reserved matters application for erection of 289 dwellings with access within the site, garaging, landscaping and public open space.




The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters  application for the erection of 289 dwellings with access within the site, garaging, parking, landscaping and public open space at Nook Farm, Haigh Moor Road, Tingley.


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


Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:


·  Outline planning consent was granted at City Plans Panel in May 2020.  This was dealt with by City Plans Panel due to the scale and nature  of the application.

·  The outline planning approval granted development for up to 299 dwellings.

·  There were four parcels of land to be developed.

·  Issues including highways, sustainability, impact on local amenities and accesses to the sites had all been discussed at the outline stage and were not for consideration with this application.

·  Affordable housing and highways contributions had been agreed at the outline stage.  There would also be enhancement and management of Haigh Wood under the legal agreement.

·  Members were asked to consider the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

·  The general character of the area is rural.  There was a consistent use of materials on buildings in the area using stone, brick and render.

·  Haigh Wood was under the ownership of the applicant and there was intention to enhance and preserve the woodlands.

·  There would be buffers of landscaping between the developments to maintain the rural surrounds.

·  The layout was broadly in line with the masterplan that was proposed at the outline stage.

·  The applicant had carried out a housing needs assessment and there would be a mixture of house types

·  The proposals would achieve a 10.08% biodiversity net gain across the sites.

·  CGI images of the differing house types were displayed.

·  The open spaces would be used for a variety of purposes and would provide good visual amenity.

·  There would be connecting footpaths between the sites.

·  The proposals were considered to be well designed and were policy compliant.  The application was recommended for approval.


Local residents addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:


·  There were no approved masterplans at the outline stage.  These were just for illustrative purposes.

·  There had not been effective consultation with the local community.

·  The housing mix does not reflect the needs of the local community.  There had been no assessment of local future housing need.

·  The only local information used was the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which was five years out of date.

·  Too many houses were proposed with regard to the open character of the area.

·  Access from Upper Green Avenue was in a location that was already problematic with traffic.

·  There was key information missing such as a consultation statement and a local housing needs assessment.

·  The Panel was asked to defer the application for further information and to allow proper consultation with the local community.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  There was a need for more affordable housing and bungalows.

o  Local people’s housing needs will not be met by this development.

o  The number of houses proposed was a major concern.

o  Housing would change the character of the woods and the open character of the area.

o  There had been a lengthy meeting with the developer in February but no exhibition/workshop style consultation for the community.

o  The developer was asked to consider further public consultation.

o  There had not been sufficient consultation with Ward Councillors.

o  Density was not the main issue for the objectors but one of several issues.

o  Local needs have not been addressed.


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


·  The proposals were considered to be an exemplar of a collaborative approach to development.

·  There had been detailed scrutiny of the application at the outline stage when it had been approved for up to 299 houses.

·  The following benefits would be delivered:

o  £7 million affordable housing contribution

o  £2.5 million towards the enhancement and management of Haigh Wood

o  £1.12 million towards improvements at Junction 28 of the M62 and other local junctions

o  £0.75 million towards bus improvements.

o  £143k to encourage sustainable travel

o  £46k for bus shelter provision

o  £2 million for Community Infrastructure Levy

·  Public consultation – 1,269 homes had been leafleted and invited to comment.  There had been meetings with the West Ardsley Action Group.

·  The layout benefits from the topography of the setting and creates distinctive character areas.

·  There would be areas of functional open space and improved connectivity.

·  The development would add value to the character of the area.

·  Nearly 60% of the properties would be one or two bedroom homes.

·  There would be extensive landscaping and hedge planting with an overall biodiversity net gain of over 10%.

·  In response to questions, the following as discussed:

o  It was not possible to reach 100% of the public for consultation.  There had been voluntary consultation with West Ardsley Action Group and Save Haigh Woods.

o  There had been communication with Ardsley and Robin Hood Ward Councillors.

o  There had been a detailed housing mix report and it was recognised that there were already a lot of bungalows in the local area.

o  The proposals would make use of air source heat pumps and be gas free which would enable carbon reduction targets to be met earlier than required.

o  The possibility of offering photo voltaic panels.

o  The housing mix was based on policy and developer requirements.  It was policy compliant with the core strategy.

o  There would be a management company established for the future maintenance of Haigh Wood.  The legal agreement would ensure its perpetuity.

o  The housing mix including the amount of affordable housing was considered to be appropriate for the area.  There had not been anything from planning or housing to contradict this.

o  The biodiversity assessment has been done in line with Natural England guidance.

o  There would be an assessment for photo voltaic panels should the application be approved.  Orientation of the properties needed to be considered to identify solar gain.  With regard to affordable housing having panels, this could be considered with the landlords.

o  Further consideration could be given to save the trees that were situated off Upper Green Avenue although some would be lost due to access requirements.  There would be replacement tree planting.

o  Affordable housing would be spread throughout the four parcels of land.

o  30% of properties needed to be adaptable and 2% needed to be accessible for disabled.  The accessible properties would be two bedroom apartments.

o  The future management of Haigh Wood would be covered by the Section 106 agreement.

o  The applicant did not own the remainder of the land within the SAP allocation.

o  There was a transitional period for future home standards – the applicant would always build to meet compliance and aspire to do further.  Full details of future home standards were not yet known.

o  There were no four or five bedroom houses included in the affordable housing as the applicant had been informed that the proposals would meet local need.

o  There would not be the use of modular building.

o  There would be 6 apartments used for affordable houses and the rest would be two or three bedroom homes.

o  The developer would need to comply with the building regulations that were in place at the time of development.


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


·  Policies EN1 and EN2 and provision of affordable housing had been covered in the outline planning permission and the Section 106 agreement.  Concern was expressed that figures were not available for water usage and carbon reduction.

·  Biodiversity – there was a comprehensive landscaping scheme with enhancement and management of woodlands.  Natural England had been consulted and felt the proposals were acceptable.

·  Density – the proposals did meet the H3 density policy.

·  The layout of the affordable housing was to be determined under this application.

·  The housing needs assessment considers the need for the kinds of affordable housing.

·  There was no requirement for a masterplan for this site but at the outline stage there as an indicative masterplan of how the site could work.

·  Concern that there was not the full information available with regard to trees and the housing needs assessment.

·  Drainage was considered at the outline stage and was subject to conditions. The finer details of the drainage strategy could not be confirmed until this application had been approved.

·  Concern regarding the design and layout and the need for further discussion on place making.

·  More clarity was requested on connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists.

·  Could there be more consultation with Ward Councillors.

·  The need for more affordable properties for low income families.

·  The remainder of the SAP allocated land not covered in this application remained available for housing.

·  There would be a Section 38 agreement with regard to the layout which would take account of finer details such as visibility splays and pedestrian access.

·  There was an extensive footpath network across the site and woodlands.  It was proposed to improve these and there would be facilities such as trim trails. 

·  The width of the footpaths would enable use by cyclists.  Further details would be needed regarding segregation from pedestrians.

·  Need to focus more on the internal layout and flexibility with the provision of affordable housing.

·  There was a need to improve the housing mix including the affordable housing and further discussion regarding design and the possible provision of bungalows.


RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for the following:


·  Consider the provision of four and five bedroom homes for affordable housing.

·  Consider the provision of bungalows.

·  Further information on trees including a full tree survey to include the quality of trees and detail regarding carbon capture.

·  Further information on compliance with street design guidance.

·  More detail on placemaking.

·  More clarity on cycle segregation and the footpath network

·  Invite a policy officer to discuss policy H4 and the housing mix.

·  Further consultation with Ward Councillors.



Supporting documents: