Agenda item

Erection of 83 dwellings, landscaping, public open space and associated infrastructure [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Mr Tate for the erection of 83 dwellings, landscaping, public open space and associated infrastructure at OS Field 2800, Eastfield Lane, Dunnington, York. The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.

In response to questions from members, officers noted that:

·        The acceptable number of dwellings per hectare was determined on case specific basis.

·        Allocations within in the Local Plan for number of houses in an area that could be developed were indicative, not definitive.

·        The reasons they determined the application was not premature were detailed in the report.

·        Proposed road improvements included in the development were to continue the 30mph section of road across the site’s frontage while adding access points and pathways.

·        The emergency services were consulted during the application process, and did not raise any concerns around emergency access.

·        The Council’s landscape architect had not raised objection to the removal of hedgerows on the application, but had merely commented on it.

·        There had been an identified need for smaller one or two bedroom affordable housing provision through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which was why they had been prioritised in this application.

·        The first 3 stages of archaeology work on the site were for creating a methodology, carrying out field work and then a report back to the archaeologist. If these findings justify further archaeological work, then there was a possibility for two more stages

·        When the report noted a ‘high level of local need’ for housing, this was referring to the local area of Dunnington as determined by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

·        It was not considered necessary or reasonable to close Eastfield Lane as part of the development. However, it had been agreed with the applicant to impose a no-right turn from the development down Eastfield Lane. The junction was not considered dangerous by officers.

·        Education officers had not raised concerns around that there was no physical additional space to teach more pupils at Dunnington School.

·        It was not considered reasonable for the Construction Environment Management Plan for the development to be brought to the ward councillors and local parish council for consultation before approval since the decision was solely to local planning authority’s to make, although they could be made aware.

[Cllr Barker joined the meeting at 17:29]

Public Participation

Peter Moorhouse spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was opposed to building on the green belt, he felt there were inadequate plans for the drainage of surface water and sewage, and he felt the site was poorly laid-out and constituted overdevelopment. He spoke on housing density, and he felt that the proposed development was too high for the surrounding area and would create precedent. Mr Moorhouse also referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and stated that he believed the application to be premature and not in compliance with policy.

In response to questions from members Mr Moorhouse stated that he felt the net area should be used to calculate housing density, not the total area.

Cllr Rowley, Ward Councillor spoke in objection to the application. He stated the although the Local Plan sought to change the designation of the land the application proposed to develop, it had not yet been approved and was still green belt land, which the NPPF sought to preserve. Cllr Rowley did not believe that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the application and he also felt that there were several brownfield sites in the city which would be better locations for development.

In response to questions from members, Cllr Rowley stated:

·        He was not party to discussions of the local plan by the previous administrations.

·        He believed that there were adequate greenfield sited within the A64, and that if the green belt had to be built on, he would prefer it was done within that boundary.

Cllr Andrew Dykes, on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he felt the application was premature, and that since the local and neighbourhood plans had not been finalised the land should be regarded as fully part of the green belt. Cllr Dykes also raised concerns around the sustainability of the new development, and highlighted its distance from village transport links to the city centre, which he described as already inadequate. Finally, he expressed the long-standing opposition of the local parish council to building on this site.

Stuart Natkus, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He stated that housing density was a statistic which was easily manipulated, and suggested the members judge the application by examining the plans. He explained that the land in question was within the general area of the green belt, but had never been specifically examined until the emerging local plan determined that it ought not to be in the green belt. Furthermore, he stated that the development would not negatively impact any of the five stated purposes of green belt land stated within the NPPF. Finally, he stated that brownfield sites did not exist in numbers large enough to meet York’s need for housing.

In response to questions from members, Mr Natkus stated:

·        The applicants had been promoting the development of the land in question for at least 5 years.

·        The applicants did not wait to submit the application under after the local plan was adopted because he believed it unlikely that it would be fully confirmed for at least two years.

·        That he would be willing to discuss the creation of a Construction Environment Management Plan.

·         That demand for affordable housing was 30% higher in York than the average, and there was also a high demand for smaller one or two bedroom properties, which necessitated the increased housing density.

·        He could not comment on the specific amounts of services charge which might be imposed for public open spaces.

·        That the houses were likely to be heated with gas.

[Break between 18:10 and 18:20]

In response to further questions from members, officers noted:

·        That they had yet to receive notification from planning inspectors about the timeframe of the local plan, but that issues relating to the principle and boundaries of the green belt were due to be discussed.

·        That they considered the housing density of the proposed to development to be acceptable and not vastly out of character with its surroundings.

·        They felt that the special circumstances of the proposed application outweighed any potential harm it may cause.

During debate, it was moved by Cllr Waters, and seconded by Cllr Doughty to defer the application until the objections made against it could be resolved in discussion of the local plan. A vote was taken, with two members in favour and eleven against. The motion was defeated.

Following further debate, it was moved by Cllr Pavlovic and seconded by Cllr Melly to approve the application subject to the conditions set out below. A vote was taken, with nine members in favour, three against and one abstention.

After members voted, the Chair commented on his reasons for abstaining which some other members considered to pre-determine him for future applications. The motion carried and it was therefore:

Resolved:

i.             That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report with below amendments and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

ii.            That amendments to conditions 11, 12 and 19 be made as outlined in the additional information, condition 9 be amended to remove referral to two storey extension, that the Traffic Regulation Order be amended to ensure that there is no right turn out of the site and that the landscaping condition be amended to ensure that landscaping in public areas be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

iii.          That the Section 106 Agreement and final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development Services and Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee.

[Cllr Daubeney left the meeting at 19:05]

[Break between 19:05 and 19:10]