Agenda item

Land At Cocoa West, Wigginton Road, York [21/01371/FULM]

Demolition of gatehouse and erection of up to 302 dwellings (Use Class C3), creche (Use Class E) and associated access, car parking, public open space, landscaping, associated infrastructure and drainage, and other associated works [Guildhall Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Latimer Developments Limited for the demolition of gatehouse and erection of up to 302 dwellings (Use Class C3), creche (Use Class E) and associated access, car parking, public open space, landscaping, associated infrastructure and drainage, and other associated works.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application noting the site location plan. Members were then given an update advising them of updates to conditions including the deletion of condition 18 with the

Road Safety Audit to be incorporated into amended condition 19 and amendment to condition 31 regarding dedicated visitor car parking spaces.

 

In response to Member questions, officers clarified that:

·        There had not been an update to the traffic assessment as closure of The Groves was temporary. Should this be made permanent, from the traffic generation figures it was thought that this would have a significant impact.

·        The main route through the site would be adopted. It was not expected that a bus route would run through the site and although this would be possible to get a bus route both ways through the site with a number of small changes.

·        Bus operators had been presented with the plan and had shown no interest in providing a bus route through the site.

·        A number of Members expressed concern about traffic congestion and suggested that a through road could be put through the site. Officers confirmed that no through traffic was a policy in the local plan.

·        Following a request to view the masterplan, officers clarified how the houses were set out on the south of the site.

·        Regarding allocated car parking and designated accessible spaces, the intention was that the council would adopt the highway and there would be a respark type parking scheme on the site. In the courtyard area car parking was allocated with properties and houses typically had parking on their driveways. The apartment blocks did not have any accessible parking.

·        Regarding the developers intention to provide 44 affordable homes, there was an affordable housing statement in the application. This would be a mix of housing and the detail of it was included in the information on the Section 106 agreement in the report.

 

Public Speakers

Adam Wisher (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He noted that Latimer was the largest housing association in the UK and that all profits would go back into the wider group. The site had been bought in 2020 and the applicant saw the opportunity to make the site into one cohesive site and balance the mix of housing with family homes. The site was sustainable responded to the housing need, with a number of changes being made to the scheme. 

 

In response to Member questions, he and colleagues in attendance to answer questions confirmed that:

·        There were no barriers to delivering 36% affordable housing as a different approach was taken to that of a traditional developer. The 36% affordable housing was a guarantee.

·        There would be a mixed tenure of housing.

·        Regarding the comments from York Civic Trust, the site was in an accessible location and the cycle routes provided alternative travel. The car club would be market led.

·        Clarion was a non-profit organisation.

·        All spaces on plot parking were accessible and there was flexibility in the spaces next to the apartment block.

·        Regarding consideration of the use of solar tiles or slates, sustainability was key and it was explained how this would be achieved.

 

Ian Fenn (architect) spoke in support of the application noting that currently the site was inaccessible to the local community and the application would provide 302 homes for different groups with 36% being affordable. He explained the landscaping on the site. He noted that the proposals were underpinned by a neighbourhood concept providing public open space, a crèche and reference library and it utilised the sustrans route. There was also 100% passive provision for electric vehicle charging.

 

In response to Member questions, he and colleagues in attendance to answer questions confirmed that:

·        The only trees to be removed on the site were on the side of the cycle path.

·        The landscaping was nature led.

·        The vast majority of houses would have electric vehicle charging points and ducting would be put in with the roads. [Officers clarified that there was a condition for 5% passive and 5% active electric vehicle car parking spaces.

·        Regarding consideration of water harvesting, including grey water, this would be worked through during the next of development.

 

During debate Members commended the scheme. Following the suggestion of a through road on the site, officers noted that it was a strategic site on the draft Local Plan. Cllr Pavlovic moved approval of the application with the amendment condition 19. This was seconded by Cllr Warters. Following a vote of eleven in favour and two abstentions, the motion was carried and it was:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to conditions in the report, amended conditions below and a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following planning obligations -

 

Affordable housing (policy compliance - 20% and tenure mix)

Off-site sports - £158,046 to be used at either of the following facilities - Heworth Cricket club, Heworth Rugby club, New Earswick sports club, New Earswick & District Indoor Bowls club, York community and gymnastics foundation, York City Knights).

On-site open space (including stray land) – on-going maintenance regime and provision of free public access

Education

Primary & Secondary - £947,142

Early Years - £588,256

Sustainable travel - first occupants offered £200 towards both bus pass and cycle/cycle equipment.

Car Club - first occupants offered £200 towards car club membership.

Traffic Regulation Order up to £30k (to cover Wigginton Road access, internal layout and potential res-parking arrangements on-site).

Section 106 monitoring fee - £31,740.20

 

Amended conditions

Condition 18

Delete condition.  Road Safety Audit to be incorporated into condition 19

 

Condition 19

Amended as follows -

 

Prior to such works commencing, a detailed scheme for the highway works on Wigginton Road and the site access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The detailed scheme shall be subject to a road safety audit (carried out in accordance with guidance set out in the DMRB HD19/03 and guidance issued by the council).

 

The detailed scheme shall accord with LTN 1/20 standards and shall contain –

 

-      Corner radii, lane widths and other features necessary to reasonably slow vehicles speeds

-      Cyclist priority at the junction

-      Relocated footpaths and pedestrian crossing islands

-      Relocated bus stops with provision of shelters and real time displays

 

The development hereby permitted shall not come into use or be occupied until the approved scheme (including works associated with any Traffic Regulation Order required as a result of the development, signing, lighting, drainage and other related works) have been fully carried out.

 

Reason: In the interests of the safe and free passage of highway users and to promote sustainable modes of transport.

 

Condition 31

Amended as follows –

 

Prior to first occupation of the development, a scheme to accommodate dedicated visitor car parking spaces within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall identify the provision of at least one dedicated visitor space within the car parking areas for each of the apartment blocks.  The parking spaces shall be retained for visitor parking (or car club vehicles) exclusively for the lifetime of the development at all times.

 

Reason: In the interests of good design and highway safety in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 112 and 130.

 

Reasons:

 

In applying the NPPF substantial weight is applied in favour of housing delivery at this site.  The land is previously developed, on the Brownfield Land Register, in a sustainable urban location and has been allocated for housing in the eLP.  The dwellings proposed would be in accordance with local need.  The scheme includes 60% housing 40% apartments, predominantly family sized (2 and 3 bed) with provision of 1 bed dwellings, that in particular meet local affordable need.  The affordable housing proposed would be policy compliant (in amount, size and type).  Additionally the developer’s intention is to exceed policy requirements, in co-operation with Homes England, providing a further 44 shared-ownership homes (a type of affordable housing as defined in the NPPF).  The scheme will provide public open space, improving the existing stray land and provide new connections within the Sustrans route. No harm to the conservation area has been identified and the scheme will comply with sustainable design policy in respect on building efficiency and performance. 

 

The Council cannot currently demonstrate an NPPF compliant five year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the Council's policies for the supply of housing are out of date, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF.  There are also no policies in the NPPF that protect assets of particular importance which provide a clear reason for refusing the development in this instance. Therefore paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF tilts the planning balance in favour of granting planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies set out in the NPPF as a whole.

 

The benefits of the scheme outweigh some of the issues raised through consultation; the NPPF test is that refusal is only justified if the adverse impacts on the scheme, when assessed against the NPPF, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  This is evidentially not the case.

[The meeting adjourned from 17:59 to 18:11]

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page