Agenda item

Outline application for residential development (circa 70 dwellings) with associated access and demolition of existing buildings.

[Hull Road Ward]

Members considered a major outline application by York St John University for residential development (circa 70 dwellings) with associated access and demolition of existing buildings.

 

In response to a late objection, officers provided clarification on a number of points as follows:

·        the site was not located within the extent of draft Greenbelt as per the 2005 Proposal maps accompanying the Local Plan;

·        Haxby Road, containing 2 artificial pitches, 5 grass football pitches, 2 rugby pitches and 3 junior pitches along with netball courts, sports hall and changing facilities was an adequate replacement of existing sports provision;

·        there was no need for another outdoors sports contribution arising from the new development;

·        refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity would seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan had yet to be submitted for examination.

 

Officers also advised that the last sentence in paragraph 4.44 of the report should be deleted and that the retention and management of The Green was to be secured by the S106 agreement.

 

Following Members’ questions, officers clarified that:

·        the community (public) access to this privately owned site was limited to 16 hours per week. This could happen on private land in order to replicate the sport function of this land. The land was available to be booked by sports clubs on the open access basis.

·        the Community Access Committee had not met over the past two years because community access at Haxby Road had been provided. There was anecdotal evidence that schools and local charities applied for access at Haxby Road and CYC made recommendations where else to apply if there was no access due to overbooking / sites not being playable.

·        they had not been aware of any complaints on noise from local residents;

·        the proposed highway development (Paragraph 4.46) would be an adopted road;

·        the Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS) were enforced by the Planning Authority.

 

Three speakers representing Save Windmill Lane Playing Fields delivered their speeches at that point.

 

Chris Wedgwood spoke in objection to the proposal, highlighting his concerns about inappropriate development within the outer boundary of the Green Belt (and potential disputes as to whether the site is within the Green Belt or not) should the application be approved, providing an example of Heslington Village Design Statement (supplementary planning guidance that was part of the Local Plan at that time) specifically saying that the village must be permanently open to protect its character. Mr Wedgwood then explained that the Regional Development Plan formed a basis for him to consider the outer boundary of Green Belt to be within six miles outside of York (within the site location).

 

Adrian Fayter also spoke in objection to the proposal, emphasising health and wellbeing matters such as child obesity and need for green space as the main reasons for the objection. He also clarified that there had not been any barriers in relation to general use of the fields over the past seventeen years and there was no reason to think that this would cease should the application be refused; this could also be an opportunity for York St John to revisit their work and partnership with City of York Council and educational providers.

 

Andrew Payne then spoke, also in objection to the proposal. He pointed out that over 1300 people had signed a petition to preserve their fields and numerous objections from local spokespeople, including the MP for York Central, had been received. He added that the University of York confirmed their willingness to purchase the land due to their maximum capacity; he also commented on the overall lack of playing facilities in York, particularly during the winter months. He supported his analysis with excerpts from the Local Plan relating to prohibition of combatting deficiency and encouraging diversity of nature available for public use. He added that eight people/organisations applied to use the fields in the past/confirmed their interests in using them but they were not available.

 

Janet O’Neill, the agent for applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. She asked Members to note the following: 

 

·        55% of the site, including the boundary trees and open space would be preserved;

·        three pitches would be maintained for University games and tournaments, one of which would be available for community teams;

·        the University could not maintain three pitches for public use due to its charitable status;

·        the University invested £9.5m in the Sports Hub and complied with the S106 agreements;

·        there was no evidence that the site’s maintenance costs (£60k p.a.) could be funded by local authority;

·        the site was surrounded by development from all sides and, therefore, did not fulfil the Green Belt definition;

·        previous appeals in relation to new housing development had been unsuccessful.

 

She then explained that the University decided to purchase Nestle playfields due to its convenience for students and affordability and that the 16 hours’ community usage was classified as minor use. She also confirmed that obtaining alternative land value for housing would be more expensive as the playing fields were bought under the agricultural land purchase. The University agreed to the community use of 66 hours per week. The number of pitches on Haxby Road increased from three to fifteen. It was clarified that whoever bought the site would be responsible for issues relating to drainage and preserving the 55% of the land.

 

Cllr Pavlovic spoke in his capacity as a ward councillor. He highlighted prematurity and procedural impropriety should the approval for the application be granted before a Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State and questioned how the community use would be achieved given that anecdotal evidence suggested that Haxby Road was currently at near capacity. It was explained at this point that the Officer’s update suggested that the “Local Plan Designation” was not appropriate for most green areas or open space and should not be used as a tool to prevent development.

 

Members requested the following amendments to the proposed conditions should the application be approved:

·        that the wording of condition 15 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) be amended to state that “measure shall include” rather than “measure may include.... “

·        that Condition 20 (landscaping scheme) be amended to refer to the lifetime of the development in relation to replacement of trees or plants rather than the 10 years currently stated (and the associated informative 4 be amended accordingly).

·        that Informative 6 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) be amended to include the City of York Council enforcement number for contact.

 

Members discussed the proposal and acknowledged the emotional aspects of the case, noting however that relatively few planning or legal factors had been considered by previous speakers and their arguments had been generally weak. It was noted, however, that the issues related to community use prevailed and more attention should be given toward the suitability of the new location. Members also commented that:

·        the city had a large demand for housing and there were currently no alternatives if adequate provision was to be secured;

·        York St John’s primary objective was to look after its students and community aspect was of secondary nature;

·         the loss of fields would result in fewer sporting facilities being accessible, particularly during the winter period, due to lack of suitable locations placed nearby;

·        the 55-minutes-long distance to the replacement facilities could encourage car use, increase noise and decrease air quality;

·        if the application was refused, the appeal was likely to be unsuccessful as there were no legal or planning grounds to refuse it;

·        Sport England supported the application should the community access be granted.

 

It was acknowledged that the University had made every effort to cater for its students and had gone beyond its duty to support local residents in order to use the facilities.

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be REFERRED to the Secretary of State, and provided that the application is not called in for their own determination, on completion of s S106 legal agreement to secure:

 

Trees :- Access and management plan for future maintenance of the tree belt that bounds the site with Hull Road and Windmill Lane

·        Open space: –

a) Community use agreement for the University’s facilities at the applicant’s Haxby Road site

b) On-site children’s play area

 

·        Highways: –

a)    Provision of 2x real time (BLISS) displays at the adjacent inbound/outbound bus stops (£10k each – total contribution £20k) and

b)  The choice to first occupiers of either bus travel (in the form of a carnet of day tickets) or cycle/cycle accessories. Such contribution to be £200 per first occupier.

 

·        Affordable Housing: – on site provision of 30%

 

·        Education: - Financial contribution of £215,935 towards:

a)  three additional places at Badger Hill Primary School

b) eight spaces at Archbishop Holgate’s CE Secondary School

c) eight pre-school places.

 

And that DELEGATED authority be given to the Assistant Director Planning and Public Protection to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report and the following amended conditions and informatives:

 

Amended Condition 15  

No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), to outline measures to minimise emissions to air and restrict them to within the site boundary during the construction phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Measures shall include, but would not be restricted to, on site wheel washing, restrictions on use of unmade roads, agreement on the routes to be used by construction traffic, restriction of stockpile size (also covering or spraying them to reduce possible dust), targeting sweeping of roads, minimisation of evaporative emissions and prompt clean up of liquid spills, prohibition of intentional on-site fires and avoidance of accidental ones, control of construction equipment emissions and proactive monitoring of dust.  The plan should also provide detail on the management and control processes including the hours of construction. Further information on suitable measures can be found in the dust guidance note produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management, see http://iaqm.co.uk/guidance/ 

 

Reason: to safeguard the amenities of the existing residential occupiers and those as they move onto the site.

 

Amended Condition 20

The first reserved matters application shall include a detailed landscape scheme showing both soft and hard landscape proposals that shall include the following information: the species, stock size, density (spacing), and position of trees, shrubs and other plants; seeding mix, sowing rate and mowing regimes where applicable; types and heights of boundary treatment such as fencing, railing, hedging; paving materials; street furniture; layout of equipped areas of play. The trees alongside the existing access road shall be retained or replaced with a suitable species in the same or similar location and incorporated in to the proposed landscape scheme. The boundaries of ownership and responsibilities for landscape maintenance following completion, sales and/or hand over should be clear from the landscape scheme. The scheme will also include details of ground preparation. This scheme shall be implemented within a period of six months of the practical completion of the development.  Any trees or plants which, during the lifetime of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing. This also applies to any existing trees that are shown to be retained within the approved landscape scheme. Any works to existing trees that are protected by a tree preservation order (TPO) or are in a conservation area, are subject to local authority approval and notification respectively within and beyond this ten year period.

 

Reason: 

The landscape proposals are integral to the function, character and amenity of a development; and as such are an essential component when giving the detailed development proposals due consideration, since the landscape scheme is integral to the amenity of the development.

 

Amended Informative 4

To allow the local authority to monitor the planting within the lifetime of the development

 

Amended Informative 6

Construction Environmental Management Plan should include City of York Council enforcement number for contact.

 

Reason:

The application site could appropriately provide up to 70 dwellings in a highly sustainable and accessible location. The scheme would not lead to unacceptable levels of traffic generation, affordable house would be provided in line with Council policy, as would financial contributions towards education and sports provision, which would be secured through a s106 agreement. Amenity space and an equipped children’s play area would be provided on site and access would be retained to the belts of mature trees which bound the site.

 

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out?of?date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The scheme would result in some harm due to the loss of the sports pitches within this location. It is concluded that this is outweighed by the application’s benefits of providing housing in a sustainable location within defined settlement limits and with good access to public and sustainable transport links and services. This is in line with the NPPF which seeks to boost, significantly, the supply of housing and to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.