Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development

(report attached)

Members considered the first of two reports of the Chief Planning Officer on applications for outline planning permission for residential development on Protected Area of Search (PAS) land in the Rothwell Ward

Although each application would need to be determined on its own merits, each raised similar planning issues.  To provide some background to the applications Members received a presentation from David Newbury, Area Planning Manager

Members were informed that both sites were designated as PAS sites in the UDPR and as such were safeguarded for development in the future.  As these applications were likely to be the forerunner for other developments coming forward, these were of strategic importance

Planning permission had been refused for development on the sites in 2009 with appeals being refused by the Inspector on grounds relating to housing land supply and accessibility and sustainability.  This decision was a forerunner for the loss of 10 appeals by the Council on Phase 2 and 3 greenfield sites.  Although these sites differed as they were PAS sites, the wider context of the need to deliver large housing numbers across the city had to be considered

The new planning guidance, the NPPF, placed an urgency on the delivery of housing and to address this situation, Executive Board had approved an interim planning policy to help manage the release of sites and enable the Council to have some control over this

The key factors in the applications before Panel were housing land supply and sustainability.  The need to demonstrate a 5 year land supply was set out in national planning guidance.  Whilst Leeds City Council considered it did have this level, unless this could be demonstrated it would be difficult to resist the release of some of these sites.  In calculating the 5 year land supply a quantum of PAS sites had been allowed but individual sites had not been identified.  If a PAS site was felt to meet the interim policy, it would contribute to the 5 year supply, which would help resist development on Greenfield sites

In terms of sustainability, in 2009, the Inspector had concluded these two sites were not sustainable and there had been no significant change in circumstances regarding accessibility to and from the sites.  However, the policy context had changed and the Council had taken the decision to release Phase 2 and 3 Greenfield sites, together with selective PAS sites

On both applications there was the possibility of using the affordable housing contribution to provide much needed extra care accommodation in Rothwell and this accorded with a report considered by Executive Board about new ways of providing this facility, with S106 Agreements being part of this

The Panel then considered the application

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

Officers presented the report which sought outline permission for the principle only of residential development on a 3.7ha Greenfield site located on the fringe of Rothwell, bounded by housing and recreation land and within reasonable walking distance from Rothwell Town Centre which hosted a good range of facilities

An indicative layout plan for 90 houses was shown, with Members being informed that the layout could be improved as could the position of the public open space on the site to provide homes which would meet design guidelines.  In the event that extra care accommodation could not be achieved off-site, affordable housing at a level of 15% would be provided

If minded to approve the application, additional conditions were proposed which related to the delivery of the travel plan; further site investigations in relation to coal on the site and to limit the number of dwellings on the site not to exceed 90

Paragraph 7.18 of the submitted report was included in error and should not be considered in assessing the proposals.  The walking distances to the nearby primary schools were also clarified

Reference was made to the supplementary report which detailed the further representations which had been received.  The level of individual representations from the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum was reported as being 69, but that it was felt that the additional representations did not raise significant new points

The Panel then heard representations from objectors and the applicant’s representative.  The Chair on this occasion allowed a period of up to 6 minutes for both parties to address the Panel

Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  that further information should have been provided to Plans Panel Members on the new interim housing delivery policy

·  that planning permission had been refused in 2009 and that a clear explanation of what had changed since then was required

·  the year 2016 referred to by a speaker and the relevance of this

·  the position of Neighbourhood Plans in being able to refuse development which a community does not wish to see

·  that a precedent would be set for PAS land if planning permission was granted on this site

·  flooding and drainage issues which had been raised by an objector and whether the site was suitable for the proposed development

·  how the local community could be reassured over the selection process for the two sites being considered

·  that the issues of sustainability and accessibility raised by the Inspector in 2009 appeared still to be relevant but that less weight was being given to these issues and the reasons for this

·  the level of planning contributions; that these often failed to fully match the needs of the area and whether this would be the case for the extra care accommodation being considered

·  whether the 90 dwellings from this site would make much difference to the city’s 5 year land supply

The following responses were provided:

·  that the interim policy would be considered at the next Joint Plans Panel meeting but that these applications required determination at this time

·  that in 2009 when planning permission was sought on the site, the policy regime was different; then it had been PPS3, now it was the NPPF and this placed a greater emphasis on the delivery of housing and on having a 5 year supply, plus 5%.  Where a 5 year land supply cannot be demonstrated there is a presumption in favour of the development.  In 2009 the Council had the Phase 2 and 3 Greenfield sites to release but these had now gone.  This was the biggest change but what had not changed and had possibly worsened slightly was accessibility to and from the site.  However, sites now had to be assessed in the broader context of the NPPF.  The Chief Planning Officer explained further and stated that the current government had placed housing delivery at the centre of economic recovery, placing less emphasis on sustainability.  The interim policy had been brought in by the Executive Board to manage the situation and in any event, towards the end of the 5 year period, some PAS sites would have come forward for development

·  the reference to 2016 was in relation to the end date of the UDP Review

·  that the evidence from appeal decisions indicated that the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan was not of itself a reason for refusal of an application

·  In terms of precedent, that part of the Executive Board’s decision was about not setting a precedent for all PAS sites but only for those which fulfilled the criteria set by the Executive Board, safeguarding other PAS sites for consideration through the Site Allocations process

·  Concerning flooding and drainage, that Flood Risk Management, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency had been consulted on the proposals and no objections had been raised, subject to the submission of appropriate drainage measures and flood risk management measures

·  that in relation to the issue of accessibility, the balance of consideration had changed due to the NPPF and that housing land supply and marketability of a site were strong factors over other matters

·  that the developer contribution which could be used for extra care accommodation would not be enough to pay for the whole scheme but it would lessen the burden on the Council although this option would need to be worked up further, with details being brought back to Panel

·  that all residential development, however small in number contributed to the housing levels the city had to achieve

Members further discussed the proposal with the following

comments being made:

·  that consultation on site allocations had been extensive, lengthy and detailed and that all Ward Members had had to accept difficult targets

·  that although the timing of applications might be difficult, the Council was not in control of the process of submitting planning applications and had to be mindful of the timescales for dealing with them to avoid appeals being lodged against non-determination

·  that the Council did not wish to build on Greenfield sites but national planning policy did not support that and the decision taken by Executive Board to introduce an interim policy was a way to set some criteria to best deal with the situation it faced

·  that these sites were not being considered because they were at the top of a list of sites, but because applications had been lodged for them which had to be determined, and that Panel had deferred determination of them in April in order to give local people the opportunity to comment

·  that this site did relate well to the settlement around it, that it was not a large development which was being proposed and that it would square off the land and regularise the boundary

·  the need for Ward Members to be consulted on the S106 Agreement and to ensure that whether extra care accommodation or affordable housing was provided, the contribution should not be less for either use

·  that the method used to consider the S106 Agreement on the Whitehall Road /Globe Road site should be adopted for this site

·  that there were many brownfield sites, particularly in the City and Hunslet Ward where development was not progressing and that this should be followed up

RESOLVED – To approve the application in principle and to defer and

delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer, subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, plus additional conditions relating to the delivery of the travel plan; further site investigations in relation to coal on the site and to limit the number of dwellings on the site not to exceed 90 and the drawing up of a Section 106 Agreement to cover those issues set out in the submitted report and in consultation with Ward Members and subject to a further report being submitted to Panel for consideration of the Section 106 Agreement prior to the determination of the application