Agenda item

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 314 houses ('Redrow Northern' Phase 1A and 1B) pursuant to outline planning permission 18/00017/OUTM. [Huntington and New Earswick Ward]

Members considered a major reserved matters application from Redrow Homes Limited for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 314 houses ('Redrow Northern' Phase 1A and 1B) pursuant to outline planning permission Site to The West of The A1237 And South Of North Lane Huntington York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services outlined and gave a presentation on the application. In response to Member questions, she was asked and explained:

·        Where the green wedge was on the landscape masterplan.

·        [In answer to a question from a Member the Chair explained the planning history of the site].

·        On the screen showed which houses would be accessed from North Lane and where the access roads to the site were.

·        Cycle and pedestrian access to the site.

The Senior Planning Officer gave an update on the application, noting that there had been two additional representations Lead Local Flood Authority and Foss Internal Drainage Board and amendments to paragraph 4.5 of the published report. She further noted an update to paragraph 5.4 of the published report in which the second sentence not being a reserved matter. The Chair highlighted paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of the report and noted what was in the scope for the committee to consider.

Public Speakers

Cllr Chris Cullwick (Huntington and New Earswick Ward Cllr) spoke in objection to the application. He explained that that the Ward Cllrs supported the development of the site. He noted that North Lane was unsuitable and they shared the concerns of the highways officer. He noted their concerns regarding the housing mix and that the scheme would exacerbate challenges for schools and the highway networks. He added that the application was premature. In answer to Member questions, he explained:

·        The impact of larger houses putting pressure on primary schools.

·        Smaller properties were in demand and there was no provision for younger, older and first time buyers.

Jennie Hanbidge, Agent for Applicant, spoke in support of the application. She noted that the application was submitted in 2023 and that Redrow had worked with officers and had fostered a positive working relationship. She noted that the proposed scheme was a results of collaborative working with officers. She added that it was an allocated strategic site in the Local Plan and she noted the housing mix on the site. In response to Member questions, she explained that:

·        The country park application was a separate submission.

·        There were opportunities in the development for recreational use.

·        They had numerous conversations with officers and they had addressed the considerations of the highways officer.

·        There had been discussions with the case officer and highway officer.

·        The housing mix for the scheme had been discussed with officers and there had been an assessment by Savills for that particular area. It was felt that the housing mix was suitable for that type of area.

Members then asked Officers questions. Officers explained that:

·        Regarding the housing mix, the officer’s view was outlined in the report and they had asked the developers to show what would be delivered in other phases.

·        The southern phase would provide apartments but that phase had not come forward yet.

·        The country park application had not been submitted but there was a phasing strategy in the conditions for the outline planning permission.

·        There was an informal route for exercising dogs and there were opportunities for people to exercise dogs in the country park as part of the wider scheme.

·        There was 8 years remaining for the reserved matters.

·        The S106 set out the triggers and it was noted that the mitigations were dealt with at the outline stage.

[The Chair added that the reserved matters timescale was 8 years from 2022.]

·        Regarding whether hedges could be put in instead of fences, the houses had permitted development rights and hedges could be put in under permitted development.

·        Garth Road was outside the boundary.

During debate, the Chair noted that the S106 contribution to schools was set out in the outline planning permission and offered flexibility based on the demand for a new school to be built and he noted that paragraph 4.8 of the report gave the detail of that.

A Member asked if the Committee could ask the Applicant to come back with a different housing mix. The Chair advised that if the Committee was minded to defer the application it would need to have justifiable grounds. He added that the application had come to Committee as it was near the determination deadline and any decision made would need to be reasonable and proportionate. The Head of Planning and Development Services explained that she would advise deferral, not refusal and she noted the officer view of the application and the assessment by Savills for the type of housing on the site. She was further asked and explained that the application could be deferred but it had to be determined by 5 November 2025 and an appeal could be taken to the inspector. The Senior Solicitor clarified that refusal was an option open to Members and she noted that officers advised would be to defer.

Following debate, Cllr Whitcroft moved the officer recommendation to approve the application. This was seconded by Cllr Melly. Following a vote with seven Members voting in favour, three against and one abstention it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Reasons:

                     i.        The proposed layout, appearance, scale, access and landscaping of the residential development for 314 dwellings including 8 self build dwellings at land to the north of Monks Cross is considered acceptable. The development provides a range of affordable and market house types and tenures, and the mix reflects the LHNA expectations for a suburban site of this typology. The density and building heights comply with the parameters agreed at the outline stage. Self and custom build housing plots are provided in accordance with the outline permission conditions and the s106 legal agreement for the site.

                    ii.        The layout provides an attractive, legible development which will help to promote active travel through the provision of infrastructure for walking and cycling as well as providing suitable access to public transport, reflecting and enhancing the arrangements already made at outline stage. There will be an extensive central greenway providing an attractive and inviting open space for recreation and amenity, with several different play features (LEAP, LAPs and trim trail). This will be further enhanced through an informal perimeter circulation pedestrian route, offering a route within a landscape setting.

                  iii.        In terms of landscaping, there are some areas of the site that the Council’s Landscape Architect considers could have been improved, although this is balanced against the delivery of housing and appropriate infrastructure. Overall, there are many merits to the site layout and landscape masterplan. The planting scheme is largely supported, with scope for change within a detailed planting plan. Conditions are required in respect to details relating to the protection of appropriate measures to protect retained trees and hedgerows and to address matters in respect of tree pit details and construction details for feature tree locations. Other matters are already dealt with via conditions on the outline permission.

                  iv.        The reserved matters therefore accord with the policies of the Local Plan, notably the site allocation (SS10) as well as the relevant policies of the Huntington Neighbourhood Plan.  Approval is therefore recommended subject to conditions. 

[The meeting adjourned from 5:58pm until 6:10pm]