Agenda item

Outline application, with access and layout, for the erection of 80 dwellings and associated work Land off, Hermitage Park, Lepton, Huddersfield.

Contact: Nick Hirst, Planning Services.

Ward(s) affected: Almondbury.

Delegate to the Head of Planning and Development to approve as detailed in

the considered report and the planning update.

The Committee gave consideration to Planning Application 2022/91735 Outline application, with access and layout, for the erection of 80 dwellings and associated work Land off, Hermitage Park, Lepton, Huddersfield.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 37 the Committee received representations from Steven Noble, David Ward, Maria Carthy (objectors) and Mark Johnson (on behalf of the applicant).

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 36(3) the Committee received representations from Councillors Alison Munro, Bernard McGuin and Paola Davies (ward members).

RESOLVED –

Delegate approval of the application and the issuing of the decision notice to the Head of Planning and Development in order to:

1.     Complete the list of conditions including those contained withing the considered report and the planning update including:

1. Reserved Matters submission and timeframes.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

3. Notwithstanding submitted details, Reserved Matters of Landscape and Scale to include finished floor levels plan.

4. Condition for Construction Environmental Management Plan (C(E)MP).

5. foul water pumping station noise limited to background level.

6. Penistone Road / Rowley Lane improvements to be provided.

7. Rowley Lane / Hermitage Park improvements to be provided.

8. Details of barrier / method of preventing through traffic to phase 3.

9. Technical specifications of internal access road.

10. Construction Management Plan (CMP).

11. Cycle storage details per unit.

12. Reserved Matter (Landscape) to include treatment of PROW KIR/85/10 details.

13. Private drive communal bin stores to be provided.

14. Phases waste collection strategy.

15. Full technical details of the proposed swale to be provided.

16. Full technical details of surface water drainage system to be provided.

17. Surface water flood routing plan to be provided and implemented.

18. Details of temporary surface water drainage to be provided.

19. Development to be done in accordance with Tree Protection Plan.

20. Ecological Design Strategy to be provided.

21. Details of boundary treatment between site and Lepton Great Wood to be provided at Reserved Matters (landscape) stage.

22. Constriction Environmental Management Plan: Ecology (CEMP: Biodiversity) to be provided.

23. Details of landscape to include lighting and crime mitigation strategy.

24. EVCP, 1 per dwelling.

25. Development done in accordance with proposed Dust Mitigation Strategies.

26. Contaminated Land Investigation (Phase 2, Remediation, Validation stages).

27. Coal legacy mitigation works.

28. Landscape details to be in accordance with approved Public Open Space plan.

Planning update:

Following the outcome of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit on the proposed Rowley Lane / Hermitage Park junction improvements, the proposal has been amended

to include the provision of parking restrictions (yellow lining) on the junction radii. This would prevent vehicle parking affecting the sightlines. These proposals would be secured via condition but would also be subject to separate

Traffic Regulation Order process that involves its own public consultation and assessment.

It has been raised by residents and ward members that the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment does not include consideration of the impacts of

the proposed highway improvement works at the Hermitage Park and Rowley Lane junction. To secure the required sightlines, the clearance of vegetation and regrading are proposed within a wooded area adjacent the highway.

It is proposed that the condition requiring the full technical details of the improvement works include an Ecological Impact Assessment. Ultimately, this will ensure the most up to date surveys (if required) are undertaken and inform

the appropriate design features and/or mitigation. Given the small size of the area and its proximity to the highway, there is no reasonable grounds of prohibitive issues being raised.

2.     Secure a section 106 agreement to cover the following matters:

a)    Affordable Housing: 16 units (20%) to consist of nine Affordable Rent (55%) and seven Intermediate Dwellings (45%), including four First Homes (25%).

b)    Open space off-site contribution: Delivery of on-site Public Open Space (amenity green space, natural and semi-natural green space, and parks and recreation) and an off-site contribution of £72,724, unless updated at Reserved Matters (Landscape) stage.

c)     Education: £225,821 towards education requirements arising from the development.

d)    Metro / sustainable travel: £50,920 towards Sustainable Travel measures (including £40,920 for MetroCard’s and £10,000 towards Travel Plan Monitoring).

e)    Access to Masterplan Phase 3/4: £422,224 with overage clause if the identified cost is exceeded.

f) Management and maintenance: Management and maintenance of on-site Public Open Space in perpetuity, drainage features in perpetuity (unless adopted by Yorkshire Water), and Biodiversity Net Gain measures for a minimum of 30 years.

g) Footpath: Maintenance of public access to footpath along diverted claimed footpath route in perpetuity.

3.     In the circumstances where the Section 106 agreement has not been completed within three months of the date of the Committee’s resolution then the Head of Planning and Development shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the mitigation and benefits that would have been secured and, if so, the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to determine the application and impose appropriate reasons for refusal under delegated powers.

A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42(5), as follows:

For: Councillors Paul Davies, S Hall, Pattison and Thompson (4 votes)

Against: Councillors Armer and A Pinnock (2 votes).