Agenda item

Further to minute 108 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 21^st November 2013 where Panel considered a further position statement on outline proposals for residential development with associated parking, landscaping, primary school, village centre, retail development, sports pavilion, play area, amenity space and associated off site highway works, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an outline application for residential development with associated parking, landscaping, primary school, village centre, retail development, sports pavilion, play area, amenity space and associated off site highway works at Thorp Arch Estate, Wetherby.

Members were given an update since the last consideration of the application:

• It was proposed to defer final determination subject to further work on the following:

o  Further work and analysis on junction design and traffic flows

o  Report back on viability and the composition of the Section 106 Package

o  Resolution of bus services

o  The Highways Agency lifting their Holding Direction

o  Expiry of public response period

These matters would be subject to a further report to the Panel

• Further representations that had been received since the previous consideration of the application.
• Feedback from a further meeting with the Consultative Forum and representations made by Councillor Wilkinson.  Issues raised included highways works, Section 106 and Section 278 contributions, impact on the rural character of the area and street lighting.  It was also suggested that low impact surfacing be used for the relief road.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The scheme could deliver up to 2,000 dwellings, a new primary school, new local shopping provision, community facilities, sports pitches and areas of open space.
• Members were given an update on the impacts at Walton Gate since last consideration of the application
• Regard also had to be had to the impact on Station House
• Sustainability issues – Section 106 Package
• Design and layout – to reflect the locality
• Landscape and ecology – retention of trees and new woodland planting.  There had been some concern expressed by nature conservation officers regarding designated areas.
• Highways issues included the restricted moves junction at Church Causeway and the relief road; impact of traffic on local villages; the Wood Lane/relief road junction; provision for cycling and pedestrian accessibility
• That the applicant had submitted a viability statement which was being considered
• The addition of conditions for the use of low noise road surfacing.and restrictions to the size and range of the retail units

The Panel heard from objectors to the application.  The following was raised:

• It was not felt that the proposals would meet sustainability requirements.
• The proposed relief road – this was not in ownership of the applicant and would become a ransom strip.
• There had been no detail on potential contamination of the land.
• The build out rate was exaggerated and the entire development would take between 25 and 30 years.
• The proposals would not meet the current housing needs.
• Inadequate provision of affordable housing.
• Impact on highways and traffic – poor public transport provision.
• It was felt that the proposals were not viable or deliverable.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

• Existing commercial and industrial infrastructure.
• Consultation process.
• A complete environmental impact assessment had been carried out.
• The proposals would contribute to delivery targets of providing new homes in the area.
• The proposals would increase employment and local economic activity as well as increasing revenue to Leeds City Council.
• The site had been identified for development within the draft core strategy.
• The application had the support of Boston Spa and Walton Parish Councils.
• The application would bring brownfield sites back into use.
• The applicant believed the proposals to be both policy compliant and sustainable.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

• With regards to sustainability the applicant felt issues that had not been considered by the Inspector such as the provision of a school, village centre, sports facilities and significant public transport enhancements made the scheme sustainable.
• Highways issues, in particular the restricted moves junction would be subject to further consideration.  Members were shown options for this junction.
• Possibility of the Council using a compulsory purchase order for land for the relief road.
• Concern that proposals to enhance accessibility for pedestrians were not suitable to rural village areas such as street lighting, tactile paving and dropped kerbs.
• Concern of increased traffic on existing villages.
• The proposals would see the redevelopment of a brownfield site.
• Dependency on the implementation of a relief road.
• Concern regarding contamination of the site.

RESOLVED – To defer final determination of the application and seek Members’ agreement to the scheme and associated range of measures subject to:

·  Further work and analysis on junction design and traffic flows

·  Report back on viability and the composition of the Section 106 package

·  Resolution of bus services

·  The Highways Agency lifting their Holding Direction

·  Expiry of public response period

These matters would be subject to a further report to Panel