Agenda item

Erection of 44no. dwellings (C3 use class), open space, infrastructure and associated landscaping [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Liam Tate for the erection of 44 dwellings (C3 use class), open space, infrastructure and associated landscaping at OS Field 2800, Eastfield Lane, Dunnington, York.

The Development Manager outlined and gave a presentation on the application. The Principal Developments Project Officer gave an update on the application noting that there had been an additional written representation from Cllr Warters. He detailed a change to the recommendation which included an additional planning obligation regarding vehicle highway connections on the land to the boundary of the land.

Members asked Officers questions to which they explained that:

·       They were satisfied that the application complied with policy H10 and they had not asked for additional affordable housing.

·       Sites had been brought forward with more affordable housing than this application which contributed to the total amount of affordable housing.

·       At this point a Member noted that it would be useful to have information on affordable housing and the Chair advised this would come through a Scrutiny Committee.

·       There was no response from the NHS requesting a contribution and the consultation would have been sent to a named NHS contact.

·       Using the presentation on the screen, Officers showed where the existing footpath was and noted that the Section 106 contribution would fill the last link through to the existing route. It was confirmed that the route would be used by pedestrians and cyclists.

·       There was a similar planning obligation on a site in Wheldrake and it had been applied similarly to this application.

·       Regarding applying penalties for developers breaching working hours conditions, the Senior Lawyer advised that there was no legal reason to issue a penalty charge notice (PCN) for breaches.

·       A note about the use of generations could be included in the CEMP.

·       Within the design and access statement the applicant had stated that all of the houses were compliant with part M of planning policy.

·       In terms of the development, Officers would be surprised if the contribution to education was not paid and it could be advantageous to the council for the S106 contribution to be paid in phases.

·       A condition regarding drainage regarding drainage being managed during the planning process could not be put in.

·       The Chair noted Cllr Warters concerns that in the previous application conditions had not been discharged. Officers advised that the 2020 application was subject to pre commencement conditions that permanently ended in July.

·       It was not known if there were any contaminated land issues. The parcel of land in the 2020 application was under two land ownerships and the agreement for the second half of the site had fallen through.

·       Regarding whether it was a material consideration that the scheme would put the 11 affordable homes into jeopardy, Officers advised that there would need to be a reason for refusal.

·       The condition in the previous application relating to contaminated land remediation had been discharged.

·       There was no evidence to suggest that the site was being split artificially and the application provided access to the second half of the site. The Chair reminded Members that they could only make a decision on the application before the committee.

·       Officers were asked and confirmed that the application met it’s obligations and noted that the spur of the access road hot the boundary of the adjacent site.

·       Condition 19 required a method of work statement from the applicant and there would be no reason for construction traffic to go through the village.

·       The broad proposal from the first application regarding the route for construction traffic was explained.

·       The Senior Lawyer explained that there were legal tests for conditions and highways officers would deal with construction traffic through the discharge of conditions.

·       Regarding the single point of access, it would need to be a considerably larger site with one point of access to cause concern.

Members debated the application. During debate a Member asked for clarity on the wording of the condition regarding the condition of the road before being occupied. Officers advised that that would significantly change the application and it was a usual approach to build a base course. The Chair explained the composition of a base course, which was confirmed by Officers.

Cllr Watson proposed that the application be approved approved subject to conditions, the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, the  additional planning obligation regarding vehicle highway connections on the land to the boundary of the land (as detailed in the committee update), and a change to Condition 19 regarding construction traffic, the wording of which delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. This was seconded by Cllr Melly.

A Member asked if there could be a condition requiring construction traffic to use the A166 and not the A1079. The Senior Lawyer advised that conditions had to meet the tests of being necessary, enforceable, and reasonable related to developments. She added that Officers did not feel it necessary to condition the route and highways had not raised concerns regarding that. The Senior Lawyer did not think that it was reasonable to ban routes for all construction vehicles all the time.

The Chair proposed that the final wording of Condition 19 regarding the promotion of the use of the A166 for construction traffic be delegated to the Chair, Vice Chair and Officers. This was seconded by Cllr Steward. Following a vote with ten voting on favour and one abstention it was:

Resolved:   That the application be approved subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement, the below additional planning obligation as recommended and amended Conditions 7 and 19:

Additional planning obligation

Vehicle highway connections on the land to the boundary of the land shall be constructed to an adoptable standard prior to the occupation of no more than 39 (thirty nine) dwellings in order to enable a vehicular highway connection from the Land to the remainder of Housing Allocation H31.

Amended Condition 7

Amend Noise section of CEMP Note to refer to generators and 24 hour running

Amended Condition 19

Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair investigate the rewording of construction traffic routing to via A166 only.

Reason:     The proposed development, subject to conditions, is compliant with the adopted Local Plan and NPPF with regards to impacts upon the highway network, sustainable travel, residential amenity, archaeology, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage. In addition to this there are considered to be suitable mechanisms to ensure that the infrastructure required to support the development can be secured.

The Chair suggested that concerns raised regarding the number of affordable homes approved against the Local Plan allocations, concerns about enforcement and concerns about whether the council was proactive enough in seeking health contributions could be examined by a Scrutiny Committee.

[The meeting adjourned at 6.08pm and resumed at 6.16pm. Cllrs Steward and Watson left the meeting at 6.08pm]