Agenda item

Outline application for residential development of maximum of 49 units with all detailed matters reserved except access (revised and resubmitted).

The Solicitor clarified that declarations of interest which had been made by Councillors Conway and Corrigan in respect of this item. Both Councillors were Members of Belmont Parish Council, but both confirmed that they had no involvement with the Parish Council planning committee and had not discussed the application previously in their capacity as Parish Councillors.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development of maximum of 49 units with all detailed matters reserved except access (revised and resubmitted) at land to the north of Willowtree Avenue, Gilesgate Moor (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members were advised that the applicant currently had an appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate further to the refusal by the Planning Authority of a previous application for the site, however in the meantime the applicant had submitted the current application.

Members were advised that since the publication of the Committee report, the NHS had confirmed that it had no objections.

Councillor Howarth, Belmont Parish Council, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the Parish Council had taken the time to compare the current application with the previous application and while it was acknowledged that the design was rather less cramped, the Parish Council views remained unchanged that the proposed development was inappropriate for the site.

The Parish Council expressed concerns regarding loss of open space, as the proposal was to build on a greenfield site which would mean the irreversible loss of a wild life corridor and open amenity area. Furthermore the Parish Council disagreed with the suggestion by the applicant that the development would increase security and reduce crime, as there was no evidence of the current open area ever contributing to those factors.

In terms of increased traffic, Councillor Howarth advised that this would have the most adverse impact on the area which already experienced significant congestion. Concerns were also expressed regarding the access and egress on a very narrow road which would give rise to an unacceptable and unsafe traffic situation. Members were advised that drivers had been using the entrance to the High Grange Estate to turn, in their attempts to queue jump in rush hour traffic.

Councillor Howarth advised that the Parish Council had noted that the proposed layout now included a number of 3 storey dwellings which the Parish Council considered to be totally out of character with the nearby existing housing.

Members were advised that in the Belmont Parish Plan Survey there was no support for 3 storey development, rather the expressed need was for affordable housing in the form of smaller houses or bungalows with disabled access.

Members were advised that the public footpath which crossed the site was a Parish Path and was presently maintained by the Parish Council. The proposal incorporated the Right Of Way into an estate circular walk. Councillor Howarth advised that the right of way crossed a very busy slip road from Belmont Road onto the A690 and was not considered to be a safe area for pedestrians, particularly unaccompanied young children.

Councillor Howarth advised that despite drainage work in recent years, at times water ran off across the road and could be a freezing hazard. Furthermore it was felt that more hard standing development could worsen local drainage.

In relation to mine gas, Councillor Howarth referred to the Environmental Desk Top Study which warned of old mine workings and mine gas which could affect human health. As such it was argued that this was not an ideal site for housing development.

Ms T Murton Smith, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak on behalf High Grange Estate Residents. The residents objected to the development for several reasons including inappropriate scale of development, increased traffic, very poor entry and egress and drainage problems, concerns which mirrored those raised by the Parish Council.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• All issues other than the access to the development, were irrelevant in the Committees consideration of the current application as it was only an outline application.
• Greenfield site – the site was greenfield and the NPPF encouraged a less restrictive approach to development on such sites.
• Wildlife Corridor – those issues had been addressed by the Ecology Officers
• Drainage and Mine Gas – conditions were attached to the current application to control those issues
• Density – the proposed development was not considered unduly high in density compared to many modern developments. Again, Members were reminded that the application was outline only.

The Highways Officer advised that the traffic which was predicted to be generated was not considered too high with only an approximate 20 vehicles using the junction per hour in peak hours. There were currently 4 vehicles per minute, as such the development would only increase that by 1 vehicle every 2  minutes. Therefore the development and projected traffic flow would be in accordance with Department for Transport guidance.

Mr T Bates, applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that the application had been resubmitted to rectify the problems raised with the original application. The Committee had previously refused the application on the grounds that it had been contrary to policy H2 and E5A, however he believed that those objections had been invalid.

The new application was for a reduced number of dwellings and Members were advised that traffic would not have to pass any other dwellings to access the site. Mr Bates now believed that current application accorded with all Government policy.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• H2 – The Officer believed that original application had been contrary to policy H2 and so the refusal had been valid.
• Of all the relevant documents, Members were advised that the NPPF defined the substantial credentials of the site.

Councillor Conway reiterated that he had an open mind in considering the application and having given due consideration to the application, he found the NPPF to be framework only and that a local context had to be applied. As such he found the saved Local Plan to be of most relevance and as such he considered that the application remained unacceptable in relation to policies H2 , E5A and H13.

In relation to the highways and access issues, Councillor Conway believed that despite the qualifying statements of officers, there remained unresolved issues regarding the new traffic light arrangements near the site.

The Solicitor clarified what would happen should the applicant be successful at appeal on the previous application.

Further to queries from Members the Principal Planning Officer clarified the different weight which should be afforded to the different planning policies.

Finding that the application had not significantly changed from the previous one, Councillor Conway advised that he remained opposed and moved refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Corrigan.

Upon a vote being taken, the motion fell.

Seconded by Councillor Iveson, Councillor Dixon moved approval of the application and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.