Further to minute 94 of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 6th January 2011 where Members considered a progress report on the application, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for redevelopment for up to 400 dwellings with ancillary shop, retention of sports ground with sports pavilion/community centre, allotments, open space and off-site highway works
(report attached)
Minutes:
Further to minutes 94 and 95 of the meeting held on 6th January 2011 when Panel considered progress reports on both schemes; the Chief Planning Officer submitted reports for determination of outline applications (including access) for residential developments at the Clariant site and the Riverside Mills site, Horsforth.
Members had previously received a presentation at pre-application stage and undertaken site visits. Site plans, photographs, indicative plans and highways plans were displayed at the meeting. The Panel agreed to consider both applications together given the substantive joint issues.
The Clariant scheme would provide up to of 400 dwellings, a shop, open space, allotments, retention of a sports & recreation ground in community use and off-site highways works. The Riverside Mills scheme would provide up to 150 dwellings, open space and off-site highway works.
Both developers had offered Section 106 and Section 278 Agreements to cover off-site highways improvements including Horsforth And Rodley roundabouts, new bus service to Horsforth, 25% Affordable Housing, footpath and cyclepath link improvements, free metrocards for residents and contributions to primary education.
Officers reported the following necessary amendments to the Riverside Mills report:
- Conditions 30 to 32 be removed from the proposed conditions
- Reference to BREAM be removed from condition 35 to be attached to the permission if granted
- Developer now offered to fund two bus stops.
Officers also provided the following updates on the latest consultation responses/representations:
A concept master plan for both schemes had been submitted to ensure the schemes integrated with each other and the wider locality. Heights were shown as being 2 to 2½ storeys at the site boundaries, with up to 3 storeys to the centre. Densities were indicated as being 25-35 dwellings per hectare at the periphery of the sites and 36-45 dwellings per hectare to the centre.
Principle of Residential Use
Officers concluded that on balance these factors supported the principle of residential use and that the sustainability package was acceptable.
Highways
Education
Speakers
The Panel then heard representation from objectors to the scheme:
Mr Martin Hughes of Horsforth Civic Society addressed the Panel on concerns relating to the impact of these isolated developments on the community infrastructure. He referred to the findings of a 2005 survey of the A65 and stated matters were unlikely to have changed. He noted that issues relating to education, highways and public transport were raised by both the community and the Panel and predicted 1000 cars could be generated by 550 homes.
Mrs Kate Arbuckle a local resident, Horsforth Town Clerk and Chair of Horsforth Town Council Planning Committee expressed concern over the traffic management plan, the current traffic problems in the area and the comments of an Inspector on a previous appeal on the nature of the routes and proposed distances to amenities. She suggested that residents were more likely to use private vehicles than walk or cycle.
Councillor A Carter Calverley and Farsley ward Member urged the Panel to consider the sites in the context of the highways network and education and whether they would be demonstrably sustainable. He noted that future residents would live within either the Horsforth or Calverley & Farsley wards and all residents of the Clariant site would live within the Horsforth ward. The subsequent increased demand for school places would have a far reaching impact on all local schools, some of which were already at capacity. Councillor Carter stated the proposed works to Rodley roundabout were insufficient and this roundabout should be signalised. Further residential developments along the A65 should not be allowed until both roundabouts were improved.
(Councillor Leadley withdrew from the meeting at this point)
Having regard to objector’s comments Panel discussed the concerns expressed regarding impact of the school run on the highways network and the proposed pedestrian route to Newlaithes School which was currently impassable due to flooding. Members also noted the comment made by Councillor Carter that none of the residents who had attended the public consultation were opposed to the principle of residential development but that residents did not believe the two schemes could be sustainable.
(Councillor Leadley rejoined the meeting)
The Panel then heard representation from supporters of the scheme:
Mrs S Ansbro on behalf of both developers who stated the sites could not be left undeveloped and the only alternative would be to seek to reintroduce permitted low grade industrial use if the proposals were not approved. The developers believed that sustainable measures on the sites could be delivered and be compliant with Policy H4. The submitted traffic analysis had taken into account the Woodside Quarry and Kirkstall Forge developments which also access onto the A65. Mrs Ansbro confirmed the developers commitment to highways works totalling £2m and acknowledged the debate regarding education provision but commented that the local schools Admissions Policy was a separate issue.
Mrs A Reeves of the Riverside Mills team then addressed the Panel on the planning history of the site and emphasised that there were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees.
Mr M Lunn of Turner & Townsend then addressed the Panel in support of the scheme and the benefits of regeneration in the area.
The Panel discussed the following matters with the developers representatives:
The Panel noted that the developer had worked with Education Leeds who had calculated that a contribution to primary provision was required, not a new school. Furthermore, there was currently spare capacity within some local secondary schools which was why no secondary education contributions were required.
(Councillor Akhtar withdrew from the meeting)
The Panel then went onto discuss education provision in detail with Mr Peter Storrie of Education Leeds as follows:
(Councillor Akhtar rejoined the meeting)
Officers reported the likely difficulties of marketing the sites for employment use, due to the significant distances from the motorway network, and that any new industrial development would also result in increased traffic and would be likely to be piecemeal.
Members received further details from the highways officer regarding the difference between the previous industrial use in terms of nature of trips, vehicles and peak times, and the proposed residential use. The Highways Officer stated further negotiation was required over the provision of a 2.5m wide cycle lane along Calverley Lane North which would provide for 2 way cycle use and prevent the need for cyclists to access and egress the site at the same access point as motorists. The Panel expressed concern that cyclists would have to make the same right hand turn at Calverley Lane South as motorists. Panel queried traffic levels on A65 compared to the site in full operation and whether accident statistics were under-estimated.
The Panel took a short comfort break at this point. Members reconvened and discussed the following:
The Chair directed the Panel to consider the applicant’s alternative offer to signalise Horsforth roundabout, which would result in the loss of Affordable Housing provision; and following a vote in which the Chair made a casting vote, the Panel agreed that if the applications were to progress toward an approval, then Panel would seek the signalisation of Horsforth roundabout instead of Affordable Housing.
The Chair then requested the Panel consider each application in turn with regards to the recommendation:
RESOLVED –
(1) Application 10/04068/OT Clariant Site
(a) That the officer recommendation to defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions not be agreed,
(b) That Officers are requested to present a report to the next meeting setting out proposed reasons for refusal of the application based on the Panel’s strongly held concerns regarding the following:
(2) Application 10/04261/OT Riverside Mills
a) That the officer recommendation to defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions not be agreed,
b) That Officers are requested to present a report to the next Panel meeting setting out proposed reasons for refusal of the application based on Panels’ strongly held concerns regarding the following:
- sustainability of the site in terms of remoteness, access, proximity to services,
- impact of traffic generated by the site on highway safety at Calverley Lane South
(Councillor Wood left the meeting)
Supporting documents: