Agenda item

MJC introduced this outline application for residential development of a parcel of land identified in the map on Page 15 of the agenda.  It is an outline only, with all matters reserved, other than access.  Members must consider whether the principle is acceptable and whether access to the site is acceptable.  Officers recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to 40% affordable housing being achieved, and a contribution to education and playspace being made. 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

AC:  doesn’t like outline applications, and is concerned about access to the site.  The roads the Planning View bus went down to reach the site are narrow.  MJC has said there could be 20 houses built on the site, which could mean 40 additional cars.  Highways officers have stated that this is alright, but what are the views of other Members and officers?

PT:  is also concerned about the access road to Wharfedale Square – on Planning View, this was blocked with cars from top to bottom.  Can double yellow lines be introduced to ensure proper access 24/7?  The area looked very congested.

PB:  considers this application to be excellent use of this piece of land, with 40% affordable housing a massive bonus.  If there is any concern about numbers, this can be discussed at the reserved matters stage, together with highways issues; the outline application aims to establish that residential use of the site is OK.

MB:  has the contaminated land officer any further information, for the future application?

JF:  this may be just an outline application to establish the use of the land for houses, but the decision made tonight regarding access will be set in stone.  Members have been caught out in this way before. The access road does seem rather narrow, and this will not change with the full application.

AC:  agrees with JF.  Outline applications often don’t even come back to Committee; this one might be nodded through by officers, which would be wrong.

CH:  is happy to go forward with this.  Understands the problems with the access roads, but is confident that officers are listening to Members’ concerns.  It will be recorded in the minutes that Members consider the outline application is OK but have some concerns about access as against the types of housing.  This will give the developer a clue about what will be acceptable, for example if for a tower block, it would not be acceptable.

PT:  can we ask for the full application to come back to Committee for determination?

MJC, in response:

-          appreciates Members’ reservations about outline applications, but reminds them that this is a perfectly legitimate application to make; the authority is being asked to consider simply if the principle of residential development is acceptable and the access appropriate;

-          the County Council highways officers have considered the application and concluded that the access is appropriate for up to 20 additional houses;

-          the original submission was for 13 houses; officers weren’t comfortable with this, and felt that the developer could make better use of the site and get more dwellings out of it, at least another three or four, which will be an important contribution to the borough;

-          the County Council is happy with the access arrangement.  In response to PT’s comment, the cars in Wharfedale Square are an existing situation and the applicant cannot be expected to mitigate for this;

-          with the REM application, the developers will have to ensure that the proposal meets its own needs for parking;  highways officers will be looking for this.  It’s likely that two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling - this is the kind of information required at the REM stage;

-          to PT, there is no requirement for further double yellow lines in Wharfedale Square; the County is happy with the highway situation in the area, and officers are standing by its advice;

-          to MB, the contaminated land officer considered the application and made no comment.  He is routinely consulted and checks records etc to ensure there are no concerns in this area;

-          assuming the outline is granted, the REM application doesn’t automatically come back to Committee but officers would expect the ward councillor to call it in if minded to do so.  In response to AC’s comment, no application is ever ‘nodded through’ – officers scrutinise applications equally thoroughly, whether they are going to Committee or decided under delegated powers;

-          all that Members are being asked to decide today is whether the principle of residential development and the access road at this site are OK; the advice on both of these issues from officers and the County Council is that it is.

PT:  Members are all aware of a new development at Priors Farm where the roads are too narrow for a refuse lorry to pass get through.  It is obvious that parking in this area is already a problem, so how can Members be expected to decide whether or not the access is OK?  Why can’t Members ask for this scheme to come back to Committee for final determination, having seen the situation and the site?

GB:   there is provision in the scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee to say that the reserved matters application is to come back to Committee for determination.

PT:  can Officers clarify what exactly on the map Members are supposed to be considering?  Presumes this is just the shaded area, not the access roads from the main road.

MJC, in response:

-          Members need to consider the immediate access from the main road as a means of access threshold between the application site and the road;

-          PT referred to Priors Farm with roads too narrow for a refuse lorry, but that development is on a very different scale and has a variety of flaws which Members have discussed in the past.  Since that application, the County and officers have wised up to the potential problems of narrow roads and parked cars making access difficult for refuse vehicles.  As Mark Powers explained in his recent presentation to Members, officers have, over the years, worked to guidance and ended up with some estates of which they are not particularly proud.  The problems have been worked through, and officers are confident that the reserved matters proposal will meet its own needs regarding parking provision.  County highways officers are also supportive of this;

-          reminded Members again that this sort of detail doesn’t need to be considered now – it will be dealt with a the reserved matters stage.  Members are being asked to vote on the principle and the access arrangements.  If they are unhappy about access and parking in the reserved matters application, it would be legitimate to refuse the scheme at that stage.

JF:  if the outline application is passed today, can the reserved matters application to come back to Committee for determination?

GB:  this has already been agreed.

MJC, in response:

-          confirmed that this request from Members has been noted, and the reserved matters application will be brought to Committee as and when it is received;

-          there is, however, no guarantee that a reserved matters application will be made.  The County Council wants to dispose of the land; another developer may make a full application, but whatever the case, the next application will come to Committee for a decision;

-          if the outline proposal is approved tonight, a standard informative should be added at the end of  the conditions relating to the NPPF stating that the application has been dealt with in a positive and proactive way.

GB:  having now established that any future reserved matters or full application will be brought to Committee for consideration, will move to the vote.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, subject to S106 agreement and added informative

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT subject to S106