Craven

 

Previous references:  Minutes 105 (2015/16) and 10 (2016/17)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit Document “N” in respect of a Reserved Matters application concerning approval of details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a development of 223 dwellings and associated infrastructure on land at Belton Road, Silsden – 17/02617/MAR.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the Reserved Matters application for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

(2)       That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways to issue the approval of Reserved Matters subject to a Deed of Variation being entered into in respect of the previously engrossed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for an increased contribution for education infrastructure from £202,844 to £244,783.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

 

Previous references:  Minutes 105 (2015/16) and 10 (2016/17)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted Document “N” in respect of a Reserved Matters application concerning approval of details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a development of 223 dwellings and associated infrastructure on land at Belton Road, Silsden – 17/02617/MAR.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of four additional representations received further to the publication of his technical report.  He also said that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, he proposed that a further condition be imposed in respect of the submission of full details of the measures to be taken to optimise the security of the site for approval in writing.  This was in response to issues raised by the West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer (WYPALO) and as suggested by the applicant.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director clarified that:

 

·         The comment by the Drainage Authority that the submitted information relating to the mitigation of flood risk was insufficient had been made prior to the External Works Plan being submitted; no formal revised response had been received further to the submission of this plan.  Evidence had been provided to show that the site could be engineered to achieve the required finished floor levels.

·         In terms of the increase from 190 to 223 units on the site; the area of development had not increased and the amount of hard surfacing had not changed to any substantial degree and these were the factors that affected surface water drainage.  A detailed drainage scheme had not yet been submitted but a condition would require that this was done.  The External Works Plan had indicated the provision of an attenuation tank.  Highways Development Control had requested that the applicant submit an addendum to the Traffic Impact Assessment in respect of the increase in the number of units and this had concluded that there would not be a significant impact on the local highway network taking into account the mitigation measures that had already been secured.

 

A Town Councillor addressed the Committee:

 

·         The access to this site was achieved via Belton Road which had been flooded on numerous occasions.  People would have to wade through water to access these new houses.

·         A second culvert had not been provided for Belton Road as planned a number of years previously.

·         An earth bund and the wall of a bridge directed water away from the Marsel House site and this meant that it would go towards this site.

·         A second culvert was needed.

·         Photographic evidence was available which illustrated the problems, with large wagons driving through water that reached the top of their axles. Emergency services had had to help people to leave Marsel House when the area had flooded in 2015.

 

In response, the Assistant Director explained that the bund and the rebuilding of the bridge at Marsel House were currently the subject of a retrospective planning application. In assessing the application account would be taken of committed housing sites in the vicinity.

 

He reminded Members that the principle of development and a drainage strategy for this site had been considered as part of the outline planning application. A full Flood Risk Assessment had been undertaken and had been taken into account when designing the drainage scheme.  Members had asked a number of questions at that stage and received specialist advice.

 

A Ward Councillor said that:

 

·         Flooding and its effects were very important issues; the adjacent site was part of a large flood plain.

·         The Authority had a duty in respect of crime prevention under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  Developments should be designed to provide a safe and secure environment.

·         The WYPALO had stated that her advice and recommendations in respect of this application had been disregarded and that the Police were unable to support the application.

·         Yorkshire Water had stated that the details submitted on 14 July were not acceptable.

·         The Assistant Director’s report stated that this was considered to be a well designed development delivering a high standard of amenity but this statement was challenged by the comments made by Yorkshire Water and West Yorkshire Police.

·         The Airedale Drainage Commissioners had stated that they stood by their initial comments on the application.  This was a major development adjacent to a major flood plain but significant information was still missing.  It was not considered appropriate to delegate the matter to officers; the information should be provided to the Committee and the matter should be deferred until this was done and the concerns expressed by Yorkshire Water, the Drainage Commissioners and the Police were addressed.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         Yorkshire Water’s comments related to the detailed drainage scheme and the applicant was not seeking to discharge those conditions at this point, although they would have to do so at a later date.

·         The WYPALO had raised concerns since the early stages of the application process.  The approach taken by the Local Planning Authority was that design was not driven by security issues but it should be ensured that a design did not lead to problems with security.  As explained earlier it was proposed that a condition be included so that agreement could be reached on the details.

 

An objector to the development said that:

 

·         The scheme was disappointing, the site had been adapted to suit the developer’s design.

·         Important details were still unresolved.

·         Public consultation was awaited on detailed layouts and to show that issues had been addressed. The residents of Silsden were very concerned.

·         The visual design was important but it was considered that constructive local input had not been permitted.

·         It was believed that the application had been brought before the Committee prematurely; it should be deferred and the applicant should consult the local community.  There was a general perception within the local community that the scheme was poorly designed.

·         The development did not satisfy a number of policies.

·         There needed to be 100% flood mitigation adequate for 223 dwellings.

·         It was considered that the Council was being short-changed by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), why had an application not been made to increase the amount in light of the increased number of houses?

·         The open space in the centre of the site had been removed and the roads would be narrower to accommodate extra houses.

·         There was a shortfall in terms of the electricity supply for sites over 100 dwellings in this area, no indication had been given of the provision of a sub-station or any other measures to address this.

·         Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points were needed.

·         The street lighting officer still had concerns.

·         This was a mixed residential and industrial area but no noise survey had been undertaken.

·         The Rights of Way officer had concerns about the proposals.

·         The Fire Service had not been consulted.

·         There was only minimal waste disposal provision.

·         The necessary infrastructure was not in place.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The outline application had been determined prior to the CIL scheme starting.  The amount secured by the Section 106 legal agreement for education infrastructure had been increased to reflect the increase in the number of units. Although the number of units had increased the new application actually had a slightly reduced floor area so the amount of CIL that would have been due, if it had applied, would have decreased.

·         Building Control was responsible for reviewing the application to ensure that there was adequate access available for emergency vehicles and this aspect would also have been considered by Highway Development Control.

·         All the issues raised, including drainage, had been addressed previously or were considered within his technical report.

·         The provision of EV charging points was a condition of the outline application.

 

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal:

 

·         The recommendation of the Assistant Director was supported.  The outline application had been dealt with without any major issues and this application dealt with the Reserved Matters.

·         Over a six month period significant discussion and negotiation had taken place on the proposals, including submission to the Design Review Panel.

·         Contact had been made with the Town Council and Ward Councillors and meetings held with local residents.  Only 8 objections had been received to this application.

·         This scheme increased the number of 2 and 3 bed homes and would provide 44 affordable homes.  There would be more open space on-site and additional landscaping.  The house types had been amended to reflect local design and they would be built in stone.

·         The applicant was working with the WYPALO to resolve the issues of concern.

·         A stone wall was proposed for the western boundary and a landscaped buffer would be provided to the northern boundary.

·         The separation distances achieved to the local businesses were higher than the standard requirements.

·         The development would be incorporated into the surrounding landscape.

·         It had been shown that there would be no adverse impact on the highway.

·         Careful design would address flood risk and there were ten relevant conditions to ensure that drainage was dealt with properly.  There had been no formal objections by drainage consultees at this point. It was possible that the development would bring about betterment of the drainage issues.

·         An archaeological assessment had been undertaken and the results recorded.

·         The financial infrastructure contributions were £40,000 higher than those associated with the outline permission and included £240,000 for education, £160,000 for recreational provision and a £100,000 contribution towards a footbridge for the A629. The amounts were higher than would have been required under CIL.

·         This was a high quality scheme and the applicants would seek to commence work as soon as possible; the development would bring employment opportunities and new homes to this area and the applicant would seek to use local labour.

 

He responded to questions from Members:

 

·         In respect of consultation; the Reserved Matters application had focussed on matters of design; the Ward Councillors and the Town Council had been contacted along with those people who directly overlooked the site.  Forty letters had been sent out which had explained the scheme and made an offer to visit and discuss any issues; six one to one meetings had taken place as a result.

 

In response to a comment from a Member of the Committee in respect of the possibility of imposing a condition to restrict the conversion of garages to living accommodation, he confirmed that there would be no objection to this and that the developer had a duty to then pass this information on to future purchasers of the properties.

 

Members discussed how best this could be achieved to ensure that the obligation was retained into the future when houses were re-sold and whether it could be included within the deeds.  The agent said that the applicant would be willing to work with the Local Planning Authority to address this. The City Solicitor advised that such a condition should be recorded on the Planning Register and on the Local Land Register and thus Solicitors should find this when conducting a search on a property and pass this information on to their clients.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the Reserved Matters application for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report together with additional conditions in respect of:

 

(i)            None of the dwellings to which this decision notice relates shall be brought into occupation until full details of the measures to be introduced to optimise the security of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall include:

 

1.    Provision of additional gates between terraced properties to provide two lockable and secure gated accesses to rear gardens of the terraced properties (a “doubling up” of secure gates);

2.    Provision of additional gates at the sides of semi-detached and detached properties to provide a lockable and secure access to rear gardens of semi-detached and detached properties;

3.    Provision of additional hedging/knee rail fencing at the frontage of properties which have open green areas in order to prevent people parking on these spaces;

4.    Provision of evidence to establish that the locks/windows/doors fitted to the houses hereby approved will meet the standards requested by the Police.

Thereafter the approved details shall be implemented in full, either before any of the dwellings to which this decision notice relates are brought into occupation or in accordance with a Phasing Plan submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To optimise the security of the houses to accord with Policy DS5 of the Core Strategy.

 

(ii)          The retention of the garages on the development for the parking of vehicles at all times; with authority being delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways to draft an appropriate condition to secure this requirement.

 

(2)       That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways to issue the approval of Reserved Matters subject to a Deed of Variation being entered into in respect of the previously engrossed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for an increased contribution for education infrastructure from £202,844 to £244,783.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways