Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on a Reserved Matters application for 57 dwellings including provision of Public Open Space and associated infrastructure, relating to scale, layout appearance and landscaping pursuant to Outline Application 17/02068/OT at Land South of Pool Road, Pool in Wharfedale.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a Reserved Matters application for 57 dwellings including provision of Public Open Space and associated infrastructure, relating to scale, layout, appearance and landscaping pursuant to Outline Application 17/02068/OT at Land South of Pool Road, Pool in Wharfdale.

Members of the Panel attended a site visit earlier in the day.

The officer explained that additional representations have been received from Councillors Barry and Caroline Anderson in terms of the building materials, relationship to the gas pipeline, drainage, and lack of consultation with residents. Late representations have also been received from residents regarding the width of the mounds and additional documentation being added online without consultation. It was noted that this information related to the house types and 3D representation of the plans and did not require consultation.

It was also noted that since publication of the submitted report, there is a proposal to increase the number of stone properties which is intended to create a more meaningful cluster at the front of the site, as well as amending boundary changes. In light of the changes, the officer suggested that the recommendation be altered to defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer, with amendments ultimately being approved by the Chair.

Photographs and slides were shown throughout the officer presentation and the following information was provided:

·  The proposal is for a residential development which lies to the South of Pool Road (A659) and is a greenfield site. The site is situation on the edge of the village of Pool-in-Wharfedale. The site is bordered by existing residential properties to the east.

·  The eastern side of the site lies within a Conservation Area.

·  Access to the site will be from Pool Road with a main spine road proposed along the western edge of the site and has been agreed through the outline planning consent.

·  The proposal will provide 20 affordable houses in a mix of 12 two-bedroom houses, 6 three-bedroom houses and 2 four-bedroom houses.

·  A landscape and biodiversity buffer zone are proposed to run outside the site along its western edge. This buffer zone is also proposed to accommodate a cycle and pedestrian pathway which will form part of the future Wharfedale Greenway route. Part of this buffer zone falls within an area of land accommodating an underground high pressure gas pipeline. The gas pipeline runs to the western part of the site. Northern Gas have objected to the application and the applicant will need to evidence compliance with the Northern Gas Networks’ publication Safe working in the vicinity of Northern Gas Networks high pressure gas pipelines and associated installations in relation to the East Bierley – Pannel High Pressure Pipeline. Separate consent will be required from Northern Gas before works are carried out near the gas pipeline.

·  There are 3 main greenspaces to the northern and southern parts of the site with a central public green space. This is the same as what was proposed previously, and the inspector did not object to this.

·  The existing trees onsite will be retained and there will be a lot of enhancement of new trees. Some of the northern developments will include a condition to disable species growing too tall and blocking light for neighbouring properties.

·  Further details of the mounds will be requested through a condition.

·  The layout of the scheme is similar to the previous application that went to an appeal. The inspectors reasons for refusal related to design and appearance.

·  The proposals to the house types have been changed, and it is proposed that there will be more stone properties, ordered facades, better materials, as well as chimneys. The proposed boundary treatments also reflect this palette of materials in prominent locations, alongside hedging and estate railings. Officers consider the new house types and design to be acceptable in terms of the Conservation Area and compared to the previous appeal decision, there has been an up-lift in the materials that are now proposed.

·  The site is visible from some long-range views to the south, in particular from Leeds Road. The proposed use of a low-profile grey roofing material and chimneys will help the development assimilate into the adjacent settlement, along the proposed landscaping which will mitigate any harm further.

Local residents and a local ward councillor attended the meeting opposing the application. The informed the Panel of the following information:

·  The development is visible from Pool Bank and Pool Road, and this poses a harmful impact on the Conservation Area.

·  It is felt that the proposals are ‘generic’, and houses of this type can be placed anywhere. Additionally, it was commented that additional stone properties are needed to preserve the Conservation Area.

·  The proposed buffer zone is not acceptable near the main gas pipeline and the proposed tarmac surface will interfere with access for maintenance works carried out by Northern Gas. It is believed that the tarmac surface over the top of the pipeline could be catastrophic.

·  It is believed that Leeds City Council have not adequately consulted with Northern Gas regarding the issues associated with the pipeline and whilst there have not been any accidents in the UK, gas pipelines have exploded in other countries.

Further to questions from Panel Members, the objectors in attendance added:

·  The gas pipeline is approximately 4ft underground and is a major gas line. Whilst it was confirmed that roads run over gas pipelines elsewhere, it is believed that this is not the same as proposing a housing development over the top of it and Northern Gas require access to carry out maintenance works.

·  There is a mixture of proposed render properties in a block, and it is felt this is not in keeping with the surroundings. The objectors felt that additional stone properties are required to ensure a quality development in the local area. Additionally, it was commented that the houses that can be seen looking down from the A660 should be built in stone to preserve the character of the area visually.

·  The objectors in attendance were mixed in opinion on the number of stone properties they believe should be proposed. Some commented that all of the properties should be built in stone, whereas some explained they would at least like to see at least half of the units in stone that can be visually seen from long distances and nearby properties.

The applicants representatives attended the meeting and provided the following information:

·  The previous appeal decision outlined that the house types were not readily found in the nearby settlement and that has been the main focus in the proposed application. The applicant has focused on the character areas and how this is implemented across the development. The applicant has carried out a detailed analysis of the surrounding areas and incorporated features such as arc features in chimneys, doors, and windows. There has been a significant change to the materials proposed.

·  Stone built properties and half stone and render properties can be found in the locality and are considered not out of character of those on Church Close.

·  There is a reduction of units proposed and the removal of dormer windows.

·  The house types are bespoke to Poole in Wharfedale and will not be found elsewhere.

·  The viewpoint will not significantly change and will be improved with a landscape buffer along the northern boundary.

·  The applicant is over delivering on Public Open Space in relation to policy requirement and there is extensive landscape buffering proposed. Trees onsite will also be retained.

·  Separation distances have carefully been considered.

·  The applicant has included a generous benefits package in terms of S106 monies and monies for offsite highways contributions.

Further to questions from Panel Members, the applicants representatives confirmed the following:

·  The applicant has taken steps to ensure they have observed the local surroundings and has taken this into consideration to preserve the Conservation Area. The applicant has looked at materials used in neighbouring properties and looked at the proportions of windows and chimneys.

·  The proposed greenery has increased and included onsite.

·  The applicant has engaged with Northern Gas and detailed responses have been sent regarding construction methods. The applicant is aware that a risk assessment has been requested and further information is required as per one of the conditions in the planning consent.

·  The applicant is also working on a development in Harrogate where works are similar in terms of the gas pipeline and the same level of objection has not been received. The applicant has experience and will undertake a refreshed risk assessment that will be submitted to Leeds City Council and Northern Gas.

·  There is an element of solar panels proposed on all properties.

·  There is a nearby play area offsite and the applicant is not proposing equipped play onsite. There are 3 areas of Public Open Space proposed for sitting, reading and informal play.

Further to questions from Panel Members, officers confirmed the following:

·  Northern Gas will have to provide their specialist response in terms of whether they are satisfied with the information provided in terms of the gas pipeline. It is then within the power of the Local Authority to determine whether that specific condition can be discharged. If the applicant cannot come to an agreement with Northern Gas, they may have to propose an alternative layout to the scheme.

·  The Conservation Officer initially raised concern regarding the materials used for the house types. However, an additional 3 houses are proposed in stone and focused on the area most visible to the gateway therefore it is considered that this is enough to enhance views to the proposed development.

·  The green boundary provides a buffer to long distance views, and it is not reasonable for officers to request that all properties should be in stone.

·  It is intended that existing access road running from east to west will be, in part, diverted as part of the proposed layout and will be pedestrianised to improve access for existing residents.

·  The only Permitted Development (PD) right that has been removed is the ability to put dormers to the rear of properties. This does not affect occupiers to add green improvements.

·  As part of the previous appeal decision, the inspector did not request any type of equipped play in the Public Open Spaces. Officers added that the Public Open Spaces are relatively small and may not maintain standoff areas to be able to utilise spaces with such equipment.

Members were generally supportive of the proposals but were keen to see additional houses built in stone and were not completely satisfied with the materials as proposed. Further to this, the applicant confirmed that they are satisfied to include further houses in stone as part of the proposals.

Additionally, Members raised concern that equipment in the Public Open Spaces has not been provided for children. A suggestion was made that the applicant consider logs or alternative informal play equipment.

A motion was made to defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer, subject to the submission of the revised plans increasing the number of properties to be constructed in stone (33), natural stone walling and the conditions as set out in the submitted report as well as the following conditions:

·  Details of the quoins (material and cross-section)

·  Revised landscaping proposals to deliver a low-level planting area to the north of plot 4 (currently shown as small copse mix (x2) on landscaping plans)

·  Addition of landscape implementation details to condition 8.

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer as set out above.

Councillor Wray left at this point in the meeting.