Previous reference:Minute 45 (2016/17)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “AC”) in respect of a planning application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – 18/02252/VOC.

 

The application relates to a residential development of 51 mixed tenure houses, including associated infrastructure, on the site of the former Bronte School, Keighley Road, Oakworth. (Planning permission was granted on 6 October 2016, Reference: 16/02526/MAF).

 

The report explains that the application is for a minor material amendment to the previously approved development through a variation of Condition 25 to substitute revised drawings. The revised drawings seek approval for the removal of two trees and retrospective regularisation for; the retention of an underground attenuation tank, alterations to the finished floor levels of Plots 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, road level changes and the addition of gabion retaining walls.

 

Recommended –

 

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.

 

                                                            (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

 

Previous reference:Minute 45 (2016/17)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented Document “AC” in respect of a planning application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – 18/02252/VOC.

 

The application related to a residential development of 51 mixed tenure houses, including associated infrastructure, on the site of the former Bronte School, Keighley Road, Oakworth. (Planning permission was granted on 6 October 2016, Reference: 16/02526/MAF).

 

The report explained that the application was for a minor material amendment to the previously approved development through a variation of Condition 25 to substitute revised drawings. The revised drawings sought approval for the removal of two trees and retrospective regularisation for; the retention of an underground attenuation tank, alterations to the finished floor levels of Plots 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, road level changes and the addition of gabion retaining walls. 

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways informed Members that 51 objections had been submitted, including one from the local MP and the issues were detailed within the officer’s report.  With regard to the gabion retaining walls he confirmed that they were acceptable and would not have an adverse effect on amenity.  They were stone faced, as the previously approved walls had been built from stone and had been constructed to the same height as those granted permission.  The road level changes consisted of minor modifications to the primary route through the site, which were in accordance with Section 38 requirements and acceptable to the Council’s Highways Department.  It was noted that the plot level changes were not largely visible or caused any issues.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that an application to remove one of the trees on the site had been submitted and approved by the Council’s Tree Officer, however, another had been damaged during the construction period.  It had been assessed and its removal agreed subject to the planting of additional trees on Keighley Road to fill the existing gaps.  The new trees would also be protected under a Tree Preservation Order.  Members were informed that the previous scheme had included an attenuation pond, however, a Health and Safety Review had been undertaken and this had resulted in the pond being replaced by an underground tank covered by an area of public open land.  A contribution of £10, 000 had also been suggested in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the North Yorkshire Moors.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report, the deletion of condition 10 and footnotes in respect of the obligations of the scheme and the proposed financial contribution.      

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that:

 

·         A condition relating to tree protection measures was in place, however, the tree damaged during the construction process had been of low value and, from a planning perspective, the proposal satisfied the situation.

·         An attenuation tank had been installed.

·         There was a condition on the application to maintain the open space.

·         Five new specimen trees had been secured for planting and would be located where they would provide maximum benefit for the site.  If replanted in the same place, they would be in front of properties and obstruct the view.

·         The application to replace the pond with the tank was retrospective, however, the Committee needed to consider whether the proposals were suitable and balance the provision of the pond against the open space provided.

·         If the application was refused, the attenuation tank would have to be removed and an alternative solution provided, which would be at a cost to the Council.

·         The attenuation tank provided a net balance in relation to flood risk, as both the pond and tank would hold the same volume.  The tank would be adopted by Yorkshire Water and they would maintain it, however, the pond would not be adopted.

 

A representative of a local MP, who was also a resident, was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         The application reneged on the promise to residents.

·         The attenuation tank removed the pond which would have been an attractive feature.

·         The developer should keep their promises.

·         The pond had been an integral part of the plan. 

·         Were the proposed changes minor?

·         The removal of the pond was not a minor feature.

·         Negligible discrepancies such as land levels were accepted.

·         The construction of an 11foot wall was not an insignificant change.

·         It was hard to believe that the issue had not been anticipated at the planning stage.

·         Residents had been promised an open green space and trees.

·         He was opposed to the proposed amendments.

·         It was believed that the alterations would allow Phase 2 of the site to be developed.

·         The proposed tank, walls and levels were already in place.

·         It was not an ideal approach to planning and what example would the Council set?

·         The application should be refused.

 

In response to some of the issues raised, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that:

 

·         The permissions did not vary a great deal.

·         The pond had been removed and an open green space would be provided.

·         Gardens would be retained.

·         It was believed that the minor changes were in relation to the development of 51 dwellings, however, they still warranted consideration.

·         It was unfortunate that the changes were retrospective, however, officers believed them to be acceptable.

·         A Health and Safety Review had prompted the removal of the pond, however, it was irrelevant to the recommendation.

·         Planning officers had to consider whether the proposal was suitable for the site.

·         Gardens would now be graded and this had not been possible previously. 

 

In response to further queries from Members, it was confirmed that the land to the south of the site was formerly the school’s playing fields.  The approved scheme had given an indicative layout for housing on the land, however, no plans had been submitted under the current application.  Future development could not be ruled out though.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reiterated that comments in relation to the Health and Safety Review were irrelevant and any changes had to be acceptable for the amenity of the site.

 

Representatives of the applicant were present at the meeting and addressed the Committee stating that:

 

·         They appreciated and acknowledged that high standards had not been met and apologised.

·         Work had not ceased whilst the planning process had been undertaken and procedures would be reviewed to ensure this did not happen again.

·         The application had not materially changed and no additional houses would be built.

·         Permission was sought for the removal of two trees and replacements would be planted.

·         Scaffolding had been erected to protect the trees, however, two were too large for their location and the Council’s Tree Officer had been contacted in relation to their removal.

·         Excessive excavation would have been necessary to establish the roads, therefore, level changes were required.

·         The attenuation tank had been installed following a Health and Safety Review, as the depth of the pond would have been 1.7 metres in order for the scheme to work.  Concerns had been raised and the alternative solution of a tank had been proposed.

 

Members then questioned the representatives of the applicant and were informed that:

 

·         They were not aware of any promises made and views could not be guaranteed.

·         The damaged tree had been protected during the construction period, however, the ground around it had been excavated and the Council’s Tree Officer had agreed that it did not have a high survival rate.

·         The attenuation tank had increased the costs, but was preferable in terms of Health and Safety.

·         The placing of a pond on top of the attenuation tank had been suggested, however, the implications of whether it could be provided were not known.

·         Residents would be able to walk over the tank.

·         As the houses had been constructed first the road levels had to be  changed, therefore, every level had to be revised in order to achieve an even access to the houses.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that a pond placed above the attenuation tank would drain into the tank, however, Yorkshire Water would not permit this to happen as they would have adopted the tank.  In relation to the replacement trees, Members were informed that they would be a stock size and specific value agreed with the Council.

 

During the discussion Members expressed concerns in relation to the processes undertaken and why work had been carried out without permission.  A review of the procedures was welcomed and it was requested that the Portfolio Holder be informed.  In conclusion Members, though disappointed in the example set by the applicant and with their reservations noted, supported the application.

 

Resolved –

 

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 and subject to the following:

 

(i)            The deletion of condition 10.

 

(ii)          The additional drawing references to be included in condition 2:

·         1884.61.303 Proposed S38 Drainage Layout Rev.C5

·         1884.61.306 Plot Drainage Rev.C4

·         1884.61.316 Proposed S104 Drainage Layout

·         1884.61.317 Adopted Manhole Schedule

·         1884.61.327 Highway Longitudinal Sections (1 of 2) Rev.T6

·         T-PRE-PR249024_KT_D1-RevC Polypipe Attenuation

·         T-PRE-PR249024_KT_D2-RevC Polypipe Attenuation

·         Net-1C-Piped Attenuation Microdrainage surface water drainage calculations

 

And that the permission is subject to the following obligations:

 

(i)         That the scheme provides affordable housing units as part of the 2015-18 Approved Housing Programme of delivering affordable housing across six sites in the District that have received Housing and Communities Agency (HCA) funding, now operating as Homes England.  Note: within the programme there will be 155 houses for rent across the programme and 33 for sale with the sales properties at full market value and at a cross subsidy to the whole programme.

 

(iii)         That payment of a contribution of £10,000 prior to occupation of the development to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats by bringing forward the improvements on routes leading to and at the Special Protection Areas (SPAs).  On these routes, erosion of adjacent habitat caused by widening footpaths is an issue and this can be addressed through a suitable contribution.

 

ACTION:   Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways