Agenda item

Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access, for up to 107 dwellings (use class C3) with associated landscaping, public open space, and vehicular access from New Lane [Huntington/New Earswick Ward]

Members considered an outline planning application with all matters reserved except access from Jomast Developments and GBL Projects for up to 107 dwellings (use class C3) with associated landscaping, public open space, and vehicular access from New Lane.

 

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application. In response to questions from Members, he explained that:

·        Regarding the southern end of the cycleway, the application had been done on the basis of The Island being built. If The Island was not built, the cycle way would end with a hedge.

·        Where the land granted permission from the Secretary of State was located.

·        The bus stop was behind the two way cycle lane.

·        The new cycle lane would result in the loss of hedgerow.

·        The cycle lane width was based on the number of users expected.

·        The self-seeded ash trees were to be removed.

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave an update on the application. The update included a summary of the Ward Councillors representation, an update on the impact of the scheme on green belt purposes 2, 4 and 5, correction to paragraph 5.34 and  proposed additional conditions regarding the accommodation mix and phasing plan.

 

Public Speakers

Cllr Cullwick (Huntington and New Earswick Ward Cllr) spoke in objection to the application representing some local concerns. He asked if the benefit of affordable housing outweighed the very special circumstances. He noted that the application offered no significant contribution to health provision or local services. He added that the scheme would result in the loss of one of the last open spaces in the area and that the loss of part of the vital green wedge was substantial. He noted the impact of the development on Strensall Common and that there was a lack of local support for the scheme.

 

In response to questions from Members, Cllr Cullwick noted that:

·        Strensall Common was within the zone of influence.

·        Regarding transport links to Strensall Common, there was a bus that ran through Huntington to Strensall Common and people also used private transport to get there.

·        There had been very little consultation with Ward and Parish Councillors.

·        Strensall Common was a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and most people travelled there in their cars.

·        He was not involved in the creation of the Huntington Neighbourhood Plan.

·        The Huntington Neighbourhood Plan should carry weight.

 

Adam Hearld (Director of Jomas Developments) spoke in support of the application on behalf of Jomast, joint applicant for the application. He explained that Jomas were working with Together Homes which was one of the biggest providers affordable homes. He noted that the scheme was 100% affordable homes and would offer a period of exclusivity to key workers. He noted that the site had strong pedestrian and transport links. He noted the ecology measures and that these would result in a net gain in biodiversity. He added that it was a windfall site needed by the city for its affordable housing needs.

 

Colleagues Adam Smout and Philip Holmes joined Adam Hearld to answer Member questions. They were asked and explained that:

·        They had focussed on making a period of exclusivity for key workers and the offer was there from the outset.

·        They were happy for the houses for social rent to be from the council.

·        A windfall site was any site not provided with an allocation in the Local Plan. [The Chair advised that the report set out the windfall site and very special circumstances].

·        A segregated cycle lane had been considered. The problem with that was that more of the existing hedge would need to be removed which was why there was a 3m width for the shared cycleway.

·        People from outside the site using the cycleway had been factored in which was why there was a signalised crossing and they wanted to minimise damage to hedges and trees.

·        Concerning car use a detailed plan would be worked through with officers at reserved matters and the site was in an accessible location.

·        The mix of affordable housing and social housing had not been set yet and they were currently at threshold levels.

 

Members then asked further questions to officers to which they responded that:

·        The mitigation measures for the site were same as the site to the north of the site. The indicative open spaces were shown on the layout plans and there was suitable mitigation based on the plans to the north of the site.

·        A Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) was undertaken for the site north of the site.

·        Reserved matters would consider the layout and landscaping of the scheme.

·        Regarding the Secretary of State’s comments on cumulative impact, the Principal Planning Officer read out the Secretary of State’s comments regarding mitigation measures to address the impact on Strensall Common and it was confirmed that officers did not consider the application site to have an impact on it.

·        The number of bedrooms in houses would be considered at reserved matters. This was an outline application that set out the principles of the scheme. There could be a condition regarding the accommodation schedule to be approved by officers.

·        The neighbourhood plan asked for smaller homes to be provided.

·        There was different funding for education and health contributions. The information on education contributions came from officers and regarding health this was reliant on evidence provided by the NHS.

·        Regarding there being no contribution to secondary school places, the response from education officers who requested early years and primary school places.

·        Condition 3 (bus stop and cycle path) would go through the highway’s road safety audit process.

·        The types of affordable would be detailed in the legal agreement and would meet NPPF requirements.

·        Social rent was of a higher need than part ownership.

·        26 of the homes for social rent and all homes met the NPPF definition of affordable housing.

·        100% affordable housing weighed heavily in the planning balance.

·        Officers’ assessment was the site had limited green belt purposes.

·        A number of strategic sites in the Local Plan had been brought to committee already.

·        The nomination rights were normally in the S106 agreement and higher nomination rights could be sought.

·        The S106 for transport was the same as Secretary of State decision on the application to the north of the site. The travel plan would be developed based on national guidance.

·        After the inquiry on the land to the north of the site there was correspondence between the planning inspector and Natural England and Natural England had been consulted on the HRA.

·        The affordable housing officer had been consulted on affordable housing.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 6.00pm until 6.11pm]

 

During debate, officers confirmed that:

·        A 3m cycle lane width was acceptable for LTN 1/20.

·        If the committee were minded to approve the application, Natural England would have to be notified, and there would be a 21 day period for consultation with them.

·        The definition of a windfall site.

·        Exclusivity for key workers could be examined as part of the S106 negotiation around the tenure mix.

 

Cllr Burton proposed the officer recommendation to delegate  authority to be given to the Head of Planning and Development Services to determine the final detail of the planning conditions and planning obligations  following referral to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Application Government under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Consultation Direction (2021), and should the application not be called in by the Secretary of State, then APPROVE the application subject to planning conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the items listed and additional condition and informative as follows:

·        Additional conditions regarding the accommodation mix and phasing plan taking into account the neighbourhood plan and housing needs assessment.

·        Additional informative regarding the bus stop and walk/cycle way.

This was seconded by Cllr Melly. Following a vote with six voting in favour and five against (including Cllr Fisher voting against), it was:

 

Resolved: That delegated authority to be given to the Head of Planning and Development Services to:  

 

1.   Determine the final detail of the planning conditions and planning obligations.

 

2.   Refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Application Government under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Consultation Direction (2021), and should the application not be called in by the Secretary of State, then APPROVE the application subject to planning conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the items listed and additional conditions and informative as follows:

 

                             i.        Additional condition regarding accommodation mix: The reserved matters applications shall demonstrate that no more than 10 (ten) dwellings within the development hereby permitted contain more than 3 bedrooms at the time of construction.

 

Reason: to ensure that the accommodation mix is appropriate, in accordance with DLP 2018 policy H3: Balancing the housing market and Huntington Neighbourhood Plan policy H2: Housing mix in new housing development proposals.   

 

                            ii.        Additional condition regarding Phasing Plan: Prior to commencement of construction, a phasing plan detailing the installation of the highway network, pedestrian and cycle access points and the open space and green infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The roads shall be constructed to adoptable standards.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan. 

 

Reason: In the interests of safety, and good design in accordance with NPPF paragraph 135.

 

                          iii.        Additional informative regarding the bus stop and walk/cycle way.

 

Reasons

1.   The site is in a sustainable location for housing and is of a design that promotes active travel and health and well-being.  The scheme would provide affordable housing for which there is an identified need.  Windfall schemes such as this, offering 100% affordable housing will be necessary if the Council is to achieve its ambitions of meeting 45% of affordable housing need in the period of 2017-2033.  The benefits of the affordable housing proposed carries very substantial weight in favour of the scheme. 

 

2.   The harm to the Green Belt would be limited and moderate weight is given to the visual and landscape adverse impacts as a consequence of developing the site.  The scheme is also unable to provide a full contribution towards the education and NHS requests for planning obligations.  There is no other harm arising from the development that cannot be addressed through planning obligations and conditions. 

 

3.   The proposals comply with the relevant policies in the Huntington Neighbourhood Plan in respect of housing need, housing mix, design principles, active travel and biodiversity.  The benefits of the scheme are considered to clearly outweigh the identified harms.

 

[Cllr Melly left the meeting at 7.00pm]

 

[The meeting adjourned from 7.00pm until 7.06pm]