Local democracy

Agenda item

LAND WEST OF DERRY HILL MENSTON ILKLEY

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “A”) which sets out a full application for residential development of 47 homes, with access from Derry Hill.

 

Recommended –

 

That the application be approved subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and conditions contained in Appendix 1 to Document “A”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

 

 

Minutes:

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “A”) which set out a full application for residential development of 47 homes, with access from Derry Hill. He shared photographs of the proposed site and plans of the development which included 14 affordable homes and consisted of a mixture of  house sizes. He advised that there would be a private drive to the development; that a number of mature trees were present on the site and that there was a water course and mature hedging to the edge of the site. He also advised that, as a result of negotiations, there would be a through road between this development and the one set out in the following agenda item which would provide two access points to both developments.

 

Members were advised that drainage attenuation was in place and that both grassland and street trees would be introduced as part of the development. The mature trees and hedge would be retained, except where the through road was proposed. Illustrations of the style of house being proposed were also presented.

 

The Assistant Director advised of 205 objections which had been received and explained that they referred to the design of the development, pressure on public transport and the highway network and pressure on school places and local GP practices. Later representations had also been made in respect of design and connectivity and movement around the site. Since then, footpath links had ben provided and there would now be both pedestrian and vehicle access to both Derry Hill and Moor Lane.

 

The Assistant Director considered the landscaping to be appropriate and noted the net gain in the number of trees on the development. He stated that the green space served as both drainage attenuation and an informal play space. He advised that the concerns raised by the Design Officer had been addressed and that the scheme was well considered and of a scale appropriate to the locality.

 

He noted that the scheme had been through a number of revisions; that parking had ben addressed and that a contribution to the Access for All initiative would be made which would ensure an accessible lift could be installed at Menston railway station. There would also be a Community Infrastructure Levy, although this would be slightly less than at first envisaged as revisions to the development meant there would now be fewer four and five bed homes.

 

The Chair queried whether the Parish Council would benefit from the Community Infrastructure Levy and was advised that would do so, to a higher level if it had an adopted neighbourhood plan and to a lower level if not.

 

An objector, representing local residents and the parish council  participated in the remote meeting and a video presentation that he had prepared was played to the Committee. In it, the objector highlighted concerns about the water course, which he stated had been both widened and deepened. He considered that this application should be rejected and that the developer should submit a fresh application restoring the original water course.

 

The Chair confirmed that the video had played successfully and that the photographs previously provided by the objector had been circulated to all members.

 

The Council’s Principal Engineer (Drainage) was in remote attendance and advised that there had been an issue in respect of the watercourse in 2017 as it had silted up and the flow of water had been impeded. The landowner had been contacted to carry out the necessary maintenance works. In terms of this application, the water course had been  modelled on the latest profile, mitigation measures had been put in place and had been approved by the Council’s drainage section.

 

The Assistant Director explained that modelling and the likely flood risk had not changed from the situation pre-development.

 

At this point in the meeting, the Governance Officer alerted the Chair to a potential problem with the live broadcast of the meeting and the Chair called a short adjournment while it was ascertained that the broadcast was running successfully.

 

Upon reconvening (following confirmation that the broadcast was running successfully) the objector was allowed to address the Committee again and stressed that the water course had been both widened and deepened which had caused flooding on Dicks Garth road. He accepted that it was a decision for the Committee but again stressed his view that a new application should be required. He also stated that this was a difficult meeting and was advised by the Chair that the management of the remote meeting today was in line with the requirements of Government legislation as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.

 

A Ward Councillor attended the meeting remotely and spoke on behalf of himself and his two ward colleagues, one of whom was unable to access the meeting and one who had another commitment. He stated that he considered the matter should be deferred as he did not consider the technology to be appropriate.

 

He stressed that the residents of Menston were not motivated to object by a “NIMBY” attitude but rather that their fundamental objection was in respect of the issued of flooding. He commented that Yorkshire Water had acknowledged that the combined sewage system was inadequate and that there was no obligation upon them to upgrade the system.

 

He voiced other concerns about the development, including clarity on the balance of affordable homes; the practicality of the cycling and walking route due to the steep topography of the area; whether priority would be given to local families and the narrowness of local streets in terms of traffic use. He asked that the application be rejected.

 

The Chair asked the Principal Engineer (Drainage) to comment on the objections in respect of the sewage system. He did so, advising that Yorkshire Water had no objection to the connection of this development to the combined sewer. He also advised that a surface water drainage scheme had been developed which would mean a significant reduction in the flow of water and therefore reduce the risk of flooding.

 

Members were also advised that there had been a minor change to the drainage scheme which meant there would be a small reduction to the water course flow.

 

The Chair asked if a document précising the comments of the ward Councillor who had been unable to join the meeting had been provided and was advised that it had not.

 

The Assistant Director explained the allocation of the affordable housing on the development, in response to the concern raised and advised that priority was given on the basis of locality.

 

The applicant’s agent was in remote attendance and spoke in support of the application, stressing that  the applicant was in support of the officer’s comments and that the principle of development at this location had been established as a previous application had been approved. She noted that no statutory consultees had objected and advised that boundaries were to be maintained and additional hedging and trees were to be planted. The area of open space which was to be established would encourage wildlife and improve the ecological value of the area. She stressed that all previous flood risk reports had been reviewed and that detailed discussions had taken place with the Council’s drainage officers, who had no concerns. The developer was committed to the off-site highways works and there were other benefits to the community from this development such as the provision of affordable housing, local employment and the contribution from the Community Infrastructure Levy to the Parish Council. She requested that the application be approved.

 

A member queried whether the agreement to a through road with the developer of the neighbouring site could be forgotten in the future and was advised that this applicant was fully committed to it. The Assistant Director also confirmed that it was a commitment for the developments.

 

Another member queried the issue of capacity in respect of the sewers and was advised by the Principal Engineer (Drainage) that Yorkshire Water had no objection to the scheme and that, although there were issues further downstream, this development would reduce the problem of surface water flow as the amount of water leaving the development was to be reduced.

 

Another member, explaining that she was not an expert on drainage matters, asked for further clarification of that and was advised by the Principal Engineer that rain water from the sites would run into a large underground tank and that a flow control system on the tank would mean it then trickled out slowly, which would reduce the risk of flooding downstream.

 

The Committee’s legal officer advised that the section 106 agreement could include provision that there be no ransom strip and the Cahir concurred with this provision.

 

In response to another question on the issue of drainage it was advised that the tank would be adopted by Yorkshire Water; the system would not increase flood risk and that the Flood Authority had approved it.

 

The Chair then turned to the issue of integral garages and requested that permitted development rights to convert any on this development be removed to prevent overdevelopment of the site and consequent parking problems.

 

Members were also assured that condition four as proposed by the Assistant Director covered the concerns raised by members in respect of drainage and the use of the underground tank.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)  That the application be approved subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and conditions contained in Appendix 1 to Document “A”.

 

(2)  That in respect of Condition 4, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved dwgs. 43885-013 B; 43885-014 B; 43885-015 B; 43885-016 C and the surface water drainage scheme shall be designed in accordance with dwg no. 43885-002 J. The maximum surface water discharge rate, off-site, shall not exceed 5.0 litres per second and the scheme so approved shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future occupiers, pollution prevention and the effective management of flood risk and to accord with Policies DS5, EN7 and EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

(3)  That an additional condition be imposed to state that notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) the integral garages within the dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall remain available for the purposes of garaging and no subsequent alterations to convert these garages to primary residential accommodation addition shall be carried out without the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure these facilities remain for parking purposes, in the interests of amenity and highway safety and to accord with Policies TR2, DS4 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

ACTION: Assistant Director, Planning Transportation and highways

 

 

 

Supporting documents: