Agenda item

This outline application seeks permission for the erection of 5no. detached dwellings with means of access. [Dringhouses And Woodthorpe]

Members considered an outline application from Crossways Commercial Estates Limited for the erection of 5no. detached dwellings with means of access.

Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 117 -123 of the Agenda and reported that:

·        they had changed their recommendation to:

Approve subject to:

Section 106 Agreement to secure the following obligations –

o   Affordable housing (contribution of £31,547.98 per dwelling); and

o   Formation of a management company to manage and maintain landscaped areas outside residential curtilage in accordance with agreed scheme.

·        An amendment to paragraph 5.20 of the committee report to read ‘A short section of hedge (approximately 7m or 4% of the hedge)’.

·        A replacement of condition 10 with the following 3 conditions:

(i)           The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

Reason: In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

(ii)         No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Design considerations.

The developer’s attention is drawn to Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 with regards to hierarchy for surface water dispersal and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuD’s). Consideration should be given to discharge to soakaway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort therefore sufficient evidence should be provided i.e. witnessed by CYC infiltration tests to BRE Digest 365 to discount the use of SuD’s.

If the proposed method of surface water disposal is via soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365, (preferably carried out in winter), to prove that the ground has sufficient capacity to except surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself.

City of York Council’s Flood Risk Management Team should witness the BRE Digest 365 test.

If SuDs methods can be proven to be unsuitable then In accordance with City of York Councils City of York Councils Sustainable Drainage Systems Guidance for Developers (August 2018) and in agreement with the Environment Agency and the York Consortium of Internal Drainage Boards, peak run-off from Brownfield developments must be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate (based on 140 l/s/ha of proven by way of CCTV drainage survey connected impermeable areas). Storage volume calculations, using computer modelling, must accommodate a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding, along with no internal flooding of buildings or surface run-off from the site in a 1:100 year storm.  Proposed areas within the model must also include an additional 30% allowance for climate change. The modelling must use a range of storm durations, with both summer and winter profiles, to find the worst-case volume required.

If existing connected impermeable areas not proven then Greenfield sites are to limit the discharge rate to the pre developed run off rate. The pre development run off rate should be calculated using either IOH 124 or FEH methods (depending on catchment size).

Where calculated runoff rates are not available the widely used 1.4l/s/ha rate can be used as a proxy, however, if the developer can demonstrate that the existing site discharges more than 1.4l/s/ha a higher existing runoff rate may be agreed and used as the discharge limit for the proposed development. If discharge to public sewer is required, and all alternatives have been discounted, the receiving public sewer may not have adequate capacity and it is recommend discussing discharge rate with Yorkshire Water Services Ltd at an early stage.

In some instances design flows from minor developments may be so small that the restriction of flows may be difficult to achieve. However, through careful selection of source control or SuDS techniques it should be possible to manage or restrict flows from the site to a minimum 0.5 l/sec for individual residential properties, please discuss any design issues with the City of York Council Flood Risk Management Team.

Surface water shall not be connected to any foul / combined sewer, if a suitable surface water sewer is available.

The applicant should provide a topographical survey showing the existing and proposed ground and finished floor levels to ordnance datum for the site and adjacent properties. The development should not be raised above the level of the adjacent land, to prevent runoff from the site affecting nearby properties.

Details of the future management and maintenance of the proposed drainage scheme shall be provided.

Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper and sustainable drainage of the site.

(iii)        Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that no foul and surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

·        Additional Condition 27

The development shall not be occupied until there has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed landscaping scheme which shall illustrate the number, species, height and position of trees and shrubs.  This scheme shall be implemented within a period of six months of the completion of the development.  Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion 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 alternatives are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the variety, suitability and disposition of species within the site in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Mr Neil Lacopi had registered to speak, however, he had registered to speak on an application that was not due to be discussed at this committee at the present time.

Cllr Fenton, Ward Member for Dringhouses and Woodthorpe mentioned that whilst he was pleased with condition 23 road safety audit, should the application be approved he suggested that there should be further mitigations, such as traffic speed control.  He considered that the applicant should be approached with a request for a commutable sum in respect of education, given the size of the site.  He considered that the application would adversely impact upon the ‘green corridor’. 

Mr Keogh from O’Neill Associates, Agent for the Applicant, explained that the site provided an opportunity for much needed housing in the City.  The applicant had agreed to many sustainability features.  The third-party objections had been addressed.  The proposal provided for a management plan to ensure its nature interest was maintained. 

The Applicant, Mr Alexander Dorman, was also availableto respond to Members questions.

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that:

·        The site was a windfall site in an urban area.

·        The NPPF stated that a commutable sum could be requested in respect of education on an application in excess of 10 dwellings or one hectare in size.  A request for a commutable sum for education had not been made, officers advised that Members could request this. 

·        Officers checked the detailed ecology report and confirmed that there were no protected ecology in the surrounding Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

·        A management company would manage the open space in the SINC, which would be administered as a service charge to the residents of these dwellings.

After debate, Cllr Orrell moved, and Cllr Pavlovic seconded, that the application be refused, overturning the officer recommendation for the following reasons which included:

Previous consideration of the site for housing allocation through the Local Plan processhad been rejected.  The proposal would erode the green corridor and adversely impact upon the openness and character of the area contravening policy G13.

A second motion to defer the application was moved by Cllr Melly and seconded by Cllr Fisher.  A Member considered that the second motion to defer the decision on this application should take precedence over the first motion to refuse this application.  The Senior Solicitor advised that motions should be taken in the order that they are proposed and that any change to that order would be at the discretion of the Chair.

A vote was taken on the first motion to refuse the application, which had been moved by Cllr Orrell, and seconded by Cllr Pavlovic.  Cllrs: Craghill, Daubeney, Melly, Orrell, Pavlovic, Perrett, Waudby, Webb and Hollyer all voted in favour of this motion.  Cllr Galvin voted against this motion, Cllr Fisher abstained from voting, and it was therefore:

Resolved:            That the application be REFUSED

Reason:               That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Services to formulate the reason for refusal in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

[The committee adjourned for 5 minutes]