Previous reference: Minute 11 (2015/16)

 

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “M”) in relation to a reserved matters application for the construction of 28 dwellings, including consideration of access (other than at Keighley Road), appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, on land to the east of Keighley Road and to the north of Harden Road, Harden – 18/00158/MAR.

 

The report also explains that the outline application (15/01039/MAO) was subject to a Section 106 legal obligation and a Deed of Variation is now requested on the grounds of financial viability.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the application 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 (in consultation with the Interim City Solicitor) to enter into a Deed of Variation, in respect of the Section 106 Legal Obligation attached to Planning Permission 15/01039/MAO, to remove the obligations in respect of affordable housing provision, recreation and public transport and retain that in respect of public open space provision as follows:

 

An obligation to provide the Village Greenspace and other Public Open Spaces as shown on Drawing 1357DHP/MCH/IMO1 REV J, or as otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, to a minimum area of 1,900m2, as open spaces [containing no buildings] in perpetuity; to include the submission of full details of the arrangements which shall be made for the management and maintenance of the Public Open Spaces shown on Drawing 1357DHP/MCH/IMO1 REV J, or as otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Previous reference: Minute 11 (2015/16)

 

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “M”) in relation to a reserved matters application for the construction of 28 dwellings, including consideration of access (other than at Keighley Road), appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, on land to the east of Keighley Road and to the north of Harden Road, Harden – 18/00158/MAR. Plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The report also explained that the outline application (15/01039/MAO) had been subject to a Section 106 Legal Obligation and a Deed of Variation was now requested on the grounds of financial viability.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations received since the publication of his technical report including one from the local Member of Parliament and one from a Councillor from an adjoining ward. He also said that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, an additional obligation should be added to the Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of the payment of a sum of £7,000 for the installation of the necessary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to protect the visibility splays at the point of access.

 

The Assistant Director outlined the following, further to questions:

 

·         He indicated the new access arrangements for Mill House, confirming that the design specification included the access for this property and that the owners of Mill House had a legal right of access.

·         The green space provision did not correspond exactly to that designated under the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (S/OS7.5). The amount of green space had been established under the outline planning permission. This had been slightly eroded by the addition of 3 new units but mitigation provided in other areas within the site. The retention of this space was secured by the Section 106.

·         Viability appraisals included a developer’s profit figure to the industry standard.

·         In respect of any abnormalities affecting costs that could not have been picked up at earlier stage; he said that there was a strong need to retain open space to maintain the character of Harden and this meant that the development area was significantly diminished, the site was also on a steep slope. The agent may be able to explain why these issues had not been identified earlier.

 

A representative of the Parish Council made the following comments:

 

·         The Parish Council had accepted the principle of development and had sought to provide positive criticism of the proposals. The efforts made by the planning officer were appreciated but there were still considered to be deficiencies in the scheme.

·         The site was placed in a unique position in the centre of the village and adjacent to the St Ives Estate. The use of standardised house types would not relate to the local architecture and they were too close to the adjacent woodland.

·         Some of the buildings were excessively tall. Three storey properties were not appropriate for this site. They should be replaced by two storey structures.

·         The Gatesway development had been intended to mimic mill buildings but this had not been successful and did not reflect the local architecture.

·         The submitted photo montage was not considered to be accurate; the land levels rose more steeply than shown.

·         It had been accepted that there would be damage to the local heritage assets; the listed cottages at Crowther Fold and the St Ives Estate. This damage had been deemed to be ‘not substantial’ but it was considered that it would lead to a poor relationship with clear overshadowing and the setting of these assets being compromised. The National Planning Policy Framework stated that the natural environment should be protected and enhanced.

·         This scheme was not considered to be compatible with Policies DS2 and  DS3.

·         The development would lead to the loss of two cherry trees and these should be replaced on a like for like basis.

·         The Section 106 obligations were always going to be a challenge for the developer but the agreement had been signed. The Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) indicated that the development was not viable if this was honoured but this actually meant that it would not generate so much profit.  It was believed that Members should have access to the FVA to be clear on this. Another developer in the area had paid circa £5,000 per house in contributions, this equated to circa £3,600 per house.

·         The loss of the Section 106 infrastructure contributions was unacceptable, there was a  need for affordable homes and education facilities in the area. This was not considered to be too much to ask, the developer had made £4.5 million pre-tax profit last year.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Assistant Director indicated the position of the three storey properties in relation to Keighley Road and Granic Mews. He also explained that:

 

·         Additional information (which had included the photo montage and cross-sections) had been required from the developer to allow the impact of these units to be assessed.

·         These properties were split level, located in the central part of the development and arranged in a natural progression up the hillside.

·         The Conservation Officer had confirmed that the impact of the proposed development on the townscape was acceptable.

·         It was difficult to draw parallels to Section 106 agreements for other developments. A detailed assessment of this site had been submitted and it had been concluded that the contributions could not be sustained due to abnormal costs and the impact of the unique character of this site/area.

·         Green space buffers were to be provided adjacent to the listed buildings and enhanced landscaping included to ensure a high quality development. The costs had been validated by an independent assessment.

·         Conditions were proposed in respect of the submission of a landscape and  maintenance management plan and the Local Planning Authority would retain strong control over this element of the scheme. The footpath link was included within the plans.

·         The judgement was balanced in terms of the benefits of delivering this scheme and the impact on the listed buildings; it was considered that there would be less than substantial harm to the listed buildings and, in his opinion, this was outweighed by the public benefits of the development.

 

A Councillor commented that the Section 106 contributions equated to approximately £3,000 per house. If houses couldn’t be sold profitably in Harden it would be very difficult to do so anywhere else. Was the Council effectively subsidising the developers and was this the wrong signal to give to other developers?

 

The Assistant Director responded with the following comments:

 

Viability Assessments included a percentage figure for developer profit that was recognised as being necessary in order to secure funding and encourage development. The Council had adopted policies which set out the accepted flexibility in such cases.  A financial assessment had been provided in respect of this development and reviewed by an independent source. Each site had particular characteristics that would vary; in this case there were significant abnormal costs associated with development, the end value of the houses would be factored into the calculations.

 

Objectors to the application were in attendance and addressed the Committee. Four photographs were circulated to illustrate the points being made:

 

·         As the proprietor of a local, family owned, fish and chip business in close proximity to the site there were concerns about overshadowing and potential issues in respect of health and safety; there was a boundary hedge along the joint boundary which  would attract flies and insects.

·         Traffic and road management changes would affect where customers (and local residents) could park; the business relied on passing trade and if parking was restricted this would have an adverse impact.

·         The need for housing was understood but there was also a need to be fair to the local community and not overshadow existing properties.

 

·         He was a former planning officer and had lived in Harden for 25 years.

·         There was great concern about the impact on the trees within the St Ives Estate adjacent to the north east boundary of the site.  This was a nationally important landscape and part of a heritage asset. The trees were very prominent and contributed greatly to the appearance and character of the area.

·         The tabled photograph illustrated the height and bulk of the trees.

·         The applicant estimated the trees were 20 metres in height but the measurements on the layout plan indicated the distances as being; Plot 25 - 4 to 5 metres, Plot 26 - 6 to 7 metres, Plot 27 - 11 metres, Plot 28 - 13 metres, Plot 24 - 14 metres and Plot 18 – 18 metres.

·         The height, value and close proximity of the trees could best be appreciated on site.

·         It was believed that the situation could result in pressure from new residents for the trees to be pruned or felled. If there was a potential risk to life and property it was difficult for Councils to resist such requests. He gave an example of another development where this had occurred, with trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders, despite careful design. This concern related particularly to the trees on the north east boundary near plots 24 – 28 but the report did not address this issue.

·         The layout should be revised so no plot was nearer than the height of any tree on that boundary. 

·         The NPPF said that trees should be protected.

·         Members were urged not to approve the application.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         The TRO was proposed in order to protect the visibility splays for the site access; it was not considered that it would have a significant impact.

·         There was unrestricted parking opposite the fish and chip shop.

·         The approval of a TRO had to go through a separate process and the detail would be subject to public consultation and consideration by the relevant Area Committee.

 

He also said that:

 

·         The woodland was sited to the north of the site so it was not considered that there would be a problem in terms of overshadowing.

·         This had been taken into account as far as possible in terms of the development layout and positioning of habitable room windows. The distances had been calculated to avoid a significant amount of additional pressure on the trees. (He indicated the position of Plot 28 on the plans in response to a Member’s request).

 

The applicant’s agent put forward the following information in response to the queries raised:

 

·         It was considered that the planning officers had been very thorough in assessing the application.

·         The applicant was a well known, high quality, local, family business.

·         If permission was granted then a guarantee could be given that the development would be delivered; providing family homes for the district.

·         The trees along the northern boundary were all outside the ownership of the applicant and any works would have to be undertaken in consultation with the St Ives Estate. It was considered that the fears expressed about the impact on these trees was unwarranted. There had been significant improvements in separation distances in some cases and plots were sited outside the extent of the root protection zones.

·         It was only when a scheme progressed to detailed design stage that issues affecting cost, and thus viability, become known. This site was very challenging due to the land levels, with retaining structures being required and split level buildings contoured to the land. The ground conditions and drainage were also complex; significant attenuation measures would be needed and the applicant had spent a considerable amount of time trying to design an effective drainage scheme.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         A considerable amount of effort had been made to achieve a scheme that would work but it was not believed that this did so; there were concerns about the visual impact; the impact on the setting of the listed buildings; harm to trees and criticisms of the design. This site was in the centre of the village and it was considered that the scheme could be a lot better; the visual impact would be significant there were too many elements that were not quite right. The issues around viability were understood but the main winners were the landowners.

·         This development had escaped Community Infrastructure Levy. If it was not viable when not subject to CIL then was Council policy viable?

·         There was concern about setting a precedent for other developers.

·         It was surprising that a local, well known builder was coming before the Committee to be excused from infrastructure payments and that the issues had not been considered beforehand.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i)         The development would cause harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings at Crowther Fold and the registered historic landscape of the St Ives Estate and would therefore be contrary to Policies EN3 and SC9 of the Core Strategy.

 

(ii)        The proposed three storey units would, by reason of their massing, have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of Harden Village and would therefore be contrary to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy.

 

(iii)       The proximity of the proposed development to woodland adjacent to the Northern boundary of the site is likely to result in future pressure for the pruning and/or felling of trees to the detriment of visual amenity which would be contrary to Policies EN5, DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways