Agenda item

Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011 where Panel deferred determination of an outline application for residential development, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Latty and Councillor Hardy left the meeting)

Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011 where Panel deferred determination of an application for a residential development on land adjoining 7 Waterwood Close West Ardsley for further information on the Council’s approach to proposals for residential development on Greenfield sites not allocated for such use, Members considered a further report

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report, referred to the indicative layout for 14 dwelling houses and stated that this was the first application to come forward for a residential scheme on a Greenfield site which was unallocated in the UDPR (2006) since the Grimes Dyke appeal decision earlier this year

Whilst acknowledging Members’ concerns raised at the August meeting, the Panel’s Lead Officer stated that approval of the application did not set a precedent.  In all cases sites were assessed and if a site made a positive contribution to the area, development was likely to be resisted.  In the case of this site, the view had been reached that it did not make a positive contribution to the overall spatial setting; it had limited public views and so did not contribute to the character of the area

Members’ concerns regarding sustainability of the site had been addressed in the report and although a further representation had been submitted by the owner of 8 Waterwood Close which raised issues about the bus routes to the site, Officers considered the site was reasonably well serviced by buses and were recommending approval of the application to Panel

Members discussed the following matters:

·  education provision with concerns being raised that some local schools were currently full

·  that the size of the site meant that the number of dwellings being proposed was below the threshold for the provision of S106 contributions and that in these cases, where permission had been granted for small residential developments, sustainability was becoming an issue which would need to be addressed but without the benefit of any planning contributions

·  that paragraph 2.2 of the submitted report relating to the Council’s land supply; the Grimes Dyke appeal decision and the consequences for the Council in terms of allowing development on Greenfield (non-allocated) sites misrepresented the position of the Council and did not accurately reflect Executive Board’s views on this matter

·  that a recent Scrutiny Board inquiry had taken evidence from Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner, Communities and Local Government, who had not said that Leeds should begin approving developments on unallocated sites

·  that if approvals for development on Greenfield sites were given, this could impact on the likelihood of achieving regeneration on brownfield sites such as EASEL or the Millennium Village in Allerton Bywater

·  that other sites were available for development; that in the region of 30,000 units were to be built out and that space for an additional 8000 units had been released earlier this year

·  that if refused, if the applicant chose to appeal the decision, the outcome of the appeal would be based upon the strength of the case put by Officers

A proposal to refuse the application was made

The Chief Planning Officer reminded Panel that the application before it

was for 14 houses in a location with constraints

  Members considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  To defer determination of the application to seek clarification from Executive Board on paragraph 2.2 of the submitted report and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report once this information had been received

  (Following consideration of this matter, Councillor Grahame left the meeting)