Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposed reasons to refuse an application for the redevelopment of the former Springhead Mills, Guiseley

(Report attached)

Further to minute 91 of the meeting held 18^th February 2010 when the Panel received a position statement on the proposals, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report on the detail of the application as submitted. The report set out proposed reasons to refuse the application for the Panel to consider.

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Officers reported receipt of 48 letters of objection including letters from Mr P Truswell MP and from local ward Councillor Andrew and went onto highlight their consideration of:

Loss of employment land – a study had concluded the current supply was sufficient for local employment needs without this site being essential. The site was surrounded by housing and may not be considered to be an ideal industrial site in the future. Officers were mindful the Panel had previously expressed a desire to keep some employment use here, but stated they did not feel they could defend a reason for refusal based on the loss of employment land.

Assisted Living Apartments – the clarity sought from the applicant on this issue had not been supplied. Use Class C3 attracted contributions as an ordinary residential use, Use Class C2 did not. Problems relating to the levels of provision of parking and amenity could occur without confirmation of the exact nature of the residential type

Design and Impact on the Guiseley Conservation Area – the buildings appeared too large/bulky and too different to those in the setting. The buildings within the northern part of the site lay within the proposed extended Conservation Area and were regarded as having some local importance but were proposed for demolition under this application

Public Transport Infrastructure/Greenspace Provision – a legal agreement is not in place to secure the financial contributions required to deal with these matters and this is dealt with the recommended reasons for refusal

Affordable Housing – the applicant sought a more flexible approach to determining the level of affordable housing in the future but officers considered that a case had not been made to depart from normal policy requirements.

Housing Mix – Much of the development was designed to cater for more elderly residents. Officers reported that, in the context of a number of recent developments in the locality also geared to older people, that it had not been shown that the development would achieve an appropriate mix and balance in the community in line with Government guidance on PPS3

Officers provided an update on comments received from Highways following the results of traffic survey stating that although this development would not have an unacceptable impact on the network in terms of impact on junctions, there were concerns regarding traffic controls; and the site layout did not meet current design standards. As such officers requested an amendment to Reason 4 as follows:

FROM - The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal includes inadequate information to enable an informed decision to be made regarding the impact of the proposal on the highway network. In the absence of such information it is considered that it is likely to lead to an intensification of use which, in the absence of off site traffic management measures, would generate additional congestion as well as conflicting traffic movements to the detriment of road safety, the free flow of traffic and the amenity of existing and prospective residents in this vicinity, and the proposed development is therefore contrary to policies GP5 and T2 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006)

TO – “The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development does not include satisfactory provision for access to the site including measures to control on-street parking on Springfield Road and satisfactory pedestrian linkages from the site to surrounding destinations. In addition, the detailed layout of the site does not meet the layout requirements of the Council’s Street Design Guide August 2009. It is further considered that the submitted Travel Plan does not satisfactorily address the need to promote sustainable patterns of travel. The development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Policies GP5 and T2 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006)”.

Members whilst acknowledging this would be a difficult site to develop commented the application did not yet present any proposals the Panel could support.

RESOLVED – That the proposed reasons to refuse the application as set out in the report be agreed – with the exception of Reason No 4 which is amended in the following terms:

“The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development does not include satisfactory provision for access to the site including measures to control on-street parking on Springfield Road and satisfactory pedestrian linkages from the site to surrounding destinations. In addition, the detailed layout of the site does not meet the layout requirements of the Council’s Street Design Guide August 2009. It is further considered that the submitted Travel Plan does not satisfactorily address the need to promote sustainable patterns of travel. The development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Policies GP5 and T2 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006)”.