Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Former Del Monte Site, Skelton Park Trading Estate, Shipton Road, Skelton, York [18/01558/REMM]

Erection of 77 no. dwellings, areas of open space, access road and associated infrastructure pursuant to outline approval 14/01478/OUTM [Rural West York] [Site Visit]

Minutes:

Members considered a major reserved matters application from Mr Tate for the erection of 77 dwellings, areas of open space, access road and associated infrastructure pursuant to outline approval 14/01478/OUTM  at  the former Del Monte Site, Skelton Park Trading Estate, Shipton Road, Skelton, York.

 

An officer update was given on the application and application 18/02583/FUL - Change of use of land to public open space with landscaping. Members were informed that comments received from the Kyle and Upper Ouse Internal Drainage Board were the same as those previously submitted for the original scheme and set out in paragraphs 3.50 of the committee report. Officers also advised that the alterations in the revised NPPF were not considered to be relevant to either application and that the additional information and the alterations to the NPPF had been assessed and as such he planning balance was considered to be unchanged from the published reports.

 

Derek Jackson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He noted that during consideration of the 2015 application for 60 dwellings, Members had expressed concern regarding pedestrians crossing the road and had asked for a signalised crossing. He noted that a condition had not been included in the decision notice and that his objection was not included in the officer update and that the committee report did not include a reference to the increase in the number of dwellings.

 

In response to Member questions Mr Jackson explained the he had been asking questions of CYC regarding the legal position since the previous year as he didn’t receive an answer when he submitted an objection to the website. He explained when he was told there was to be an increase in the number of dwellings.

 

John Goodsir, representing Skelton Village Trust spoke in objection to the application. He noted that in the 2008 design statement it said that any future development would be separated from the A19 and there was little to show that this had been addressed. He noted that most of the residents for the 77 homes would need to cross the A19 and there was no indication of how cyclists and pedestrians would cross the road safely. He was asked and clarified that there was very little to show how the A19 would change and he noted particular concern regarding elderly people and school children crossing the road.

 

The Applicant, Liam Tate, spoke in support of the application. He noted that the use of the brownfield site would make a valuable contribution to CYC housing delivery. He outlined the revised layout that included a range of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties and would deliver 1.2 hectares of public open space. He noted that the application had been supported by all consultees.

 

Mr Tate was asked and clarified that:

·        The sustrans cycle path ran to the rear of the site and there were discussions with the golf club regarding providing a link to the cycle path over land owned by the golf course.

·        A number of properties would overlook the public open space

·        Highways officers had reviewed and were happy with the scheme as the increase in the number of dwellings was not a material increase.

·        The arrangements for the A19 were agreed at the outline stage.

 

Keith Hayton, Chair of Skelton Parish Council Planning Committee spoke in objection to the application. He noted the Parish Council’s objection to the overall development because of the isolation of the new estate and safety. He stated that there had been no local consultation on the road layout and that to not have a signal controlled crossing was dangerous. He asked that on the A19 there be a traffic light controlled crossing and that the speed limit be reduced to 30mph.

 

Councillor Steward, Rural West York Ward Councillor, spoke on the  application. He noted that he supported the development of a brownfield site, however, there was an issue with highways and he believed that the traffic scheme was inadequate. He added that if there wasn’t signalised traffic lights there would be more accidents and more people using their cars.

 

In answer to Member questions, Councillor Steward confirmed that he felt that the introduction of traffic lights would slow traffic down and with regard to Skelton Primary School welcoming the development there was the question of how children get across the road. He believed that parents would drive their children across the road.

 

At this point, the Senior Solicitor then gave a legal update advising Members that the outline planning consent had established the principal of development for residential purposes and that notwithstanding the fact that the application for outline consent had included a plan showing a layout comprising 60 dwellings this had been submitted for indicative purposes and did not constitute a bar to the applicant seeking a greater number of dwellings at the reserved matters stage provided the impacts arising from such a proposal were not greater than those assessed at the outline stage. It was also noted that the existing S106 did not specify a cap on the number of dwellings. Referring to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Part 3, it was noted that there was nothing that precluded the approach put forward to the committee. The solicitor advised that the Reserved Matters application before the Committee was in scope and as such it was lawful for the Committee to consider and determine the application.

 

The Senior Solicitor advised, in response to Member questions, that the Highway Network Management had assessed the application on the basis of the greater number of proposed dwellings and determined that it gave rise to no additional impacts beyond those already assessed. He was asked and explained that planning officers would be able to advise on when an application would be considered as a material change and that in future, conditions relating to a cap on the number of houses would be a matter for the committee to decide.

 

The Development Manager then advised Members that planning conditions needed to be reasonable and necessary. He explained that when there was an assessment of the outline application it wasn’t deemed necessary to cap the number of houses. He then outlined the original outline application.

 

The Traffic and Highway Development Manager explained that Highways had considered the change from 60 to 77 units, traffic and pedestrian movements and had suggested a scheme of traffic management control. He outlined the road layout. In response to Member questions he explained the methodology used to determine the requirement for a signal controlled crossing, noting that the criteria for one had not been met. He was asked and clarified that the provision for a school crossing patrol was available for consideration and that the speed limit could not be reduced to 30mph and the limit was in line with guidance. Members were reminded by the Chair that the access arrangements had already been approved and she listed the items that could be considered as reasons for refusal which were: layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping.  During debate, the Traffic and Highway Development Manager recorded that he was not happy with a statement made by Cllr Richardson.

 

Members debated the application in detail. Councillor Warters moved and Councillor Shepherd seconded refusal of the

application on the grounds of the increase in housing numbers compromising the layout and loss of trees and compromising highway safety.  On being put to the vote the motion fell.

 

Councillor Doughty moved and Councillor D’Agorne seconded deferral of the application on the grounds that a signalised pedestrian crossing should be provided. On being put to the vote the motion fell.

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the prior variation of the S106 legal agreement as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the report as follows:

 

The application is recommended for approval following the variation and signing of the S106 legal agreement to remove the reference in the legal agreement that the formal children’s play space and amenity space will be provided within the red line of the outline planning permission. If the variation of the legal agreement cannot be agreed the application will be brought back to committee.

 

Reasons:

 

                     i.        The proposed development would provide a mix of market and affordable housing in line with current guidance. The development has been designed to modern highway standards to reduce vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian movement. The proposal would introduce a mixed residential scheme in a sustainable location and is considered to be generally acceptable.

 

                    ii.        The application is recommended for approval following the variation and signing of the S106 legal agreement to remove the reference in the legal agreement that the formal children’s play space and amenity space will be provided within the red line of the outline planning permission. If the variation of the legal agreement cannot be agreed the application will be brought back to committee.

 

                   iii.        These alterations are considered to be:

 

(a)   necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b)   directly related to the development; and,

(c)   fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development,

 

and therefore comply with Regulation 122 of the 2010 CIL Regulations. These contributions would also comply with Regulation 123.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page