Agenda item

Planning permission is sought for 14 no. dwellings, composing of  7 pairs of semi-detached two storey dwellings; 6 x 2 bed dwellings and 8 x 3 bed dwellings, with 26 car parking spaces. 

Members considered a major full application by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust for the erection of 14no. dwellings with associated infrastructure following the demolition of 2 no. garage courts.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans, clarifying that the application was for 8no 2 bedroom and 6no 3 bedroom dwellings.  He also provided Members with a written update to the officers report which included amendments to conditions 2, 18 and 21 and additional conditions which covered the replacement of storage buildings, the replacement of drying facilities and sustainable construction.  It also covered an additional consultation response from the Housing Strategy Officer and an update to the Recommendation as follows:

a.  The completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the following planning obligations

·       Affordable Housing: 100% provision

CYC nominations to 75% of the social rent properties

Review of the GDV upon the completion of the construction works

In response to questions from Members on the application plans, he clarified the location of the proposed new native hedge and the size of replacement trees.  He confirmed the size of the replacement sheds and that they were for the use of existing occupants.  In relation to the affordable housing it was reported that eight would be social rent and 6 would be shared ownership.

Public Speakers

Richard Cowling, a resident of the estate, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concerns over car parking, loss of drying space and a lack of communication from the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust.

In response to questions from Members, he confirmed that two residents had been allocated replacement garages.  He stated that there were no marked bays for parking and some residents would find it difficult to access the alternative garages.

Geoff Beacon spoke in opposition to the application.  He raised concerns regarding the plans for two parking spaces per dwelling, which he described as high car ownership and stated that this would lead to an increase in carbon emissions which would contribute to the failure to  meet the city’s net zero target.

Kathryn Jukes, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She noted that the application was to provide 100% affordable housing.  The garages were not suitable for modern cars and those residents that had requested garages had been reallocated them.  The development was to be built to exceed 2030 building regulations and provide accessible, lifetime homes.

In response to questions from Members, she confirmed that there was no off street parking for existing properties, there would be some visitor parking in the new development which would be generally available to residents.  It was still possible to request a garage and the car parking provision was policy compliant.  Air source heat pumps would be installed and solar panels will be considered as part of a further review.  The storage units that were being rebuilt were large enough for two bicycles / adapted cycle or a mobility scooter.  The 100% affordable homes were in excess of policy requirements and the density of the development was considered suitable for the area.

Following further questions from Members, officers reported the following:

·       The style of the development was not considered harmful to the conservation area

·       The design of the buildings and the site layout had been considered by the Conservation Officer, against the density of the site.

·       The performance of the windows was outside the scope of the committee.

·       The summary of the viability report was publicly available, the detail was confidential.

·       A household waste collection point was specified on the plans, the viability of assisted bin collections could not be confirmed.

·       Landscaping is usually required to follow within six months, or the first planting season, of the completion of the development.  It would be difficult to hold up the occupation of affordable housing to wait for landscaping to be completed.  It would not be usual to put conditions on the landscaping that would limit what homeowners could do in their own gardens.

·       Condition 11 was included to protect the hedgerow and require a management plan, to be agreed by the local authority, for the future management of the hedge in perpetuity.  It would not be usual for a hedge in a private garden to be managed by a third party.

Following debate, Cllr Melly proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to an amendment to the landscaping condition so that the landscaping was completed within 6 months of the first occupation and landscaping forward of the curtilage of the properties was to be conditioned in perpetuity of the development, rather than for 10 years.  This was seconded by the Chair.

On being put to a vote, with three in favour, four against and one abstention, the motion fell.

There was further debate, during which officers advised on the consequences of a deferral.  They explained that an appeal against non-determination could be brought which would mean that the planning inspectorate would have jurisdiction over the application.  In addition, the applicant could bring a judicial challenge on the grounds that the officer recommendation was reasonable.  

Cllr Vassie proposed deferral so that the management plan for the maintenance of the hedge proposed under condition 11 could be submitted for the committee’s consideration.  Cllr Cullwick seconded the motion and on being put to a vote, with five Members in favour and three against it was:

Resolved:             That the application be deferred.

Reason:               Due to the potential loss of biodiversity value, the committee require the submission of the management plan for the maintenance of the hedge proposed under condition 11 to be submitted for their consideration.

[7.05pm – 7.15pm, the meeting was adjourned.  Cllrs Warters and Orrell left the meeting]