Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposed reasons to refuse the application which will form the basis of the Council’s case at the appeal against non-determination

(Report attached)

Further to minute 40 of the Panel meeting held 9^th September 2010 when Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to refuse the application but to defer determination of the application, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out proposed reasons to refuse the application. The Panel had previously been sympathetic to a temporary permission but had not supported a permanent permission

It was reported that the applicants had now submitted an appeal against the non-determination of the application and the reasons for refusal suggested in the report would form the Councils case at the subsequent appeal. Members were asked to form a view of the decision they would have taken had they been in a position to do so.

Officers highlighted the following issues

• The applicants had applied for two Certificates of Lawful Use for airport car parking, one of which included some of the land within the application site. It was reported that there was substantial evidence of car park use during the last 10 years to support the issuing of a Certificate relating to the eastern part of the site, but that further clarification was required regarding the sites within Coney Park Industrial Estate site. These two applications would involve approximately 700 spaces
• LBIA had formally consulted LCC on proposals to create 600 on-site car parking spaces within the Bentley Compound inside the LBIA boundary. This proposal was permitted development and the present intention was that it would be operational by March 2011 to accommodate peak traffic

It was noted the applicants had sent a representation directly to Panel Members and that LBIA had submitted a response to that. The Chair read out the contents of a further letter sent on the day of the meeting by the applicants offering a public transport contribution.

The Panel commented on enforcement matters and the involvement of LBIA in the application process however Members remained of the view that they could not support a permanent permission for car park use on this site.

RESOLVED – That had the Panel been able to determine the application then they would have refused permission for the following reasons which will form the basis of the Councils case at the appeal against non determination:

1. It is considered that the proposed development would undermine the Council objectives of providing sustainable surface access for the benefit of all airport users and the wider community by providing parking outside the remit of a plan-led approach for future parking requirements at Leeds Bradford Airport. It is therefore contrary to Policies SA2, T24A, T30 and T30A of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to the aims of the Leeds Bradford International Airport Adopted Airport Surface Access Strategy (2006) and Masterplan (2005 - 2016) and Government Guidance in PPS1 and PPG13.

2. The proposed development as submitted would result in the loss of part of a key employment site, as designated in Policy E8 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), to a non-employment use that would under-utilise an important site in a strategic location. The applicant has failed to show that there are sufficient alternative sites available of equivalent or better quality in the locality. Therefore it is considered that the loss of the proposal site would cause harm to the Council’s interest in maintaining opportunities for local employment uses in the locality of west and north-west Leeds, contrary to Policy E7 and E8 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic

Growth (2009).

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillor Wadsworth required it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillor Matthews required it to be recorded that he voted against the recommendation