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

Land at Boroughbridge Road, West of Trenchard Road, York [20/00752/FULM]

Erection of 60no. affordable homes with associated infrastructure, including access, public open space and landscaping [Rural West York Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a Major Full Application from Karbon Homes & York Housing Association for the erection of 60 affordable homes with associated infrastructure, including access, public open space and landscaping at the land at Boroughbridge Road, west of Trenchard Road, York.

 

The Head of Development Services gave an update advising Members of an extra reason for the proposed refusal on the basis of the Applicants not agreeing to the required S106 obligation to education and of an adjustment to Green Belt reason for refusal, to include the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan. Members were also advised on the comments from the Council’s housing officers and it was confirmed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report.

 

The Head of Development Services then gave a presentation on the application detailing the proposed layout, site plan, proposed elevations, 3D visuals, site plan in relation to the Green Belt and site allocation in the emerging local plan. In response to Member questions Officers confirmed that:

·        The site was previously used as sports and recreation space and included an agricultural field.

·        The civil service sports field no longer fitted the Green Belt objective and the Planning Inspectors had asked the Council to do more development on the Green Belt boundaries.

·        When the Planning Inspector reached their conclusion on the planning appeal from Miller homes they found that the site had no Green Belt weighting to the application.

·        The site would be windfall as it was not in the draft local plan allocation. The site allocations in the local plan were clarified and there were policies in the plan to address housing need.

 

Public speakers

Martin Wistow spoke in objection to the application as Chair of York Trenchard Residents Company Ltd, and as a resident directly affected by the application. He expressed concern regarding building in the Green Belt (as designated in the Emerging Local Plan) and that the designs had not addressed the concerns by residents. He noted that there was housing being built on the former British Sugar and Civil Service sites and that no Very Special Circumstances (vsc) were sufficient to allow the building of housing on Grade 2 agricultural Green Belt.

 

Simon Grundy (Carter Jonas, Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the application was for a unique not for profit development for affordable housing. He explained that significant weight should be given to the very special circumstances. He challenged a number of points made in the report in not setting out how acute the housing supply had become. He set out the land supply position, suggesting that heavy weighting should be applied to this.  He noted that the land beyond Trenchard Road was urban fringe and he considered that the failure to allocate the land in the local plan should not be considered as a reason for refusal. He was asked and explained to Members:

·        Why the education contribution under S106 was refused.

·        That is permission was granted, building would start as soon as possible in 2021.

·        There would be a mix across the tenures, including the individual right to buy.

·        The occupants of the housing were already in the education system in York and York Housing had advised that families on the waiting list would not place additional burden on education across York.

·        Regarding the suitability of alternative sites, a number of sites in the emerging local plan were not suitable for family housing.

·        It was felt that there was no policy basis (nationally or in York) for the education contribution and 100% of the occupants would be drawn from families in York.

·        Children living on the site would attend schools across York.

·        The S106 agreement would be negotiated for the tenure of future dwellings.

·        The application should be determined on its own merits not on the basis of residents suggest may come in the future. He referred to the Barwood decision to exemplify this.

 

Peter Rollings (Chairman of Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council) spoke on the Parish Council’s objection to the application. He explained that whilst the site was not in the direct boundary of Rufforth and Knapton, it was clearly in the Green Belt as defined by the examiners for the Rufforth and Knapton

Neighbourhood Plan. He noted that the applicant failed to provide very special circumstances, adding that the development would cause harm to the local area. He suggested that the need for affordable housing could be met without this inclusion of this site.

Cllr Barker, Ward Councillor, objected to the application on the grounds that it was in the Green Belt. He noted that the Miller site opposite was to provide 266 homes, 80% of which would be affordable, as well as the development on the former British Sugar site, which would also provide a number of affordable homes. He explained that the infrastructure would not cope with the development and he felt that there were other brownfield sites that should be used for development.

Cllr Hook, Ward Councillor spoke in objection, citing that it was contrary to the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan and Rufforth and Knapton Neighbourhood Plan. She explained that the GP practice in Poppleton was oversubscribed and this development would place more stress on the practice. A Member noted that there was a number of doctors’ surgeries in the local area.

Mr Grundy, Agent for the Applicant clarified the housing mix as 60% social housing, 25% right to buy housing and 15% shared ownership.  The Head of Development Services was asked and clarified that the amount of affordable housing on the former British Sugar site had not been agreed but this was a minimum of 38 dwellings which could rise to circa 200 depending on the viability. She further clarified that there would be an offsite contribution if the affordable housing was not met.

Cllr Lomas moved and Cllr Warters seconded, that the application be refused. The Head of Development Services clarified the proposed reasons for refusal as detailed in the report and update. Members were asked and confirmed they were all present for the consideration of the application.

 

Members debated the application, expressing a number of different views. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote for the refusal of the application was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs Baker, Daubeney, Doughty, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, Lomas, Warters, Waudby, Widdowson and Cullwick voted for the motion;

·        Cllrs Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Kilbane and Pavlovic voted against the motion.

 

The motion was therefore carried and it was

 

Resolved: That the application be refused.

 

Reason:

 

     i.        The Applicants do not agree to the required s106 obligation for education (£633,630). There is currently no capacity at local pre-schools, primary and secondary schools within the catchment of the application site to accommodate the proposed development. The scheme would not contribute towards providing education places required in the locality to meet the needs of this development. As such the proposals are not compliant with the following policies; NPPF paragraph 94, the NPPG on Planning Obligations and education contributions and Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 policies ED6 and DM1.

 

    ii.        The proposal by reason of its location within the Green Belt would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would also result in a detrimental impact on openness of the Green Belt due to its scale and location and conflict with the Green Belt's purposes, as identified in NPPF paragraph 134.

 

  iii.        The site is not one which has been identified for development in the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 (which is at examination stage) or the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan (made on 19 October 2017). The benefits put forward by the applicant do not, either individually or cumulatively, clearly outweigh the totality of this harm and therefore do not amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal for the purposes of the NPPF. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular section 13 'Protecting Green Belt land', policy PNP1 of the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan and policy GB1 'Development in the Green Belt' of the emerging Local Plan.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 17:48 to 18:17]

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page