Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which introduces a

Pre-Application Presentation for amendmants to the consented scheme for the redevelopment of the former High Royds Hospital site, Menston. Including areas of new residential development within the Greenbelt, consented Commercial Units to become residential and residential conversion of the Central Administration Block in place of the Approved Assisted Living Units at the former High Royds Hospital site, Bradford Road, Guiseley

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a pre-application presentation for amendments to the consented scheme for the redevelopment of the former High Royds Hospital, Menston including areas of new residential development within the green belt, consented commercial units to become residential and residential conversion of the central administration block in place of the approved assisted living units.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed.

Issues highlighted regarding the pre-application included the following:

·  The site had been developed under permission approved in 2005.

·  Proposed changes to the original plans included the change of use of some of the existing buildings and erection of new buildings.

·  The proposals for an assisted living scheme in the administration block had not attracted an operator and there were fresh proposals to develop this into houses and flats.

·  Viable operators had not been found for other parts of the proposed development for shops, a GP practice and a crèche.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The proposals were heritage led and not building led.

·  The revised proposals would have less impact in the terms of demolition and new building.

·  English Heritage were supportive of the proposals for the administration building.

·  Historical importance of the site and buildings – the proposals aimed to re-develop the existing listed buildings rather than demolish and re-build

·  Members were shown a photo montage of the original proposals against the new proposals – the new proposals were less obtrusive and did not obscure views as much as the original.

In response to Members questions, the following was discussed:

·  Use of the ballroom for community use – this would be consulted on and existing residents would have to be taken into consideration.

·  Design of new buildings – these would be kept within the character of the area and in keeping with the listed heritage.

·  Provision of a GPs surgery – there had been a marketing exercise and some initial offers that were not viable.

·  Sports and social facilities – discussion was ongoing and there were proposals for a new building on site which would also be used as a pavilion for cricket and football changing rooms.

·  Affordable housing – this was being done in 4 phases, the first two were complete and there were approximately 15 to be completed on the third phase.

The Panel heard representations from a local Ward Councillor and Members of the Public.  Issues raised included the following:

·  Concern regarding the none delivery of employment opportunities, a crèche, shops and GP practice.  Alternative solutions would be preferred.

·  Concern that the proposals would join onto the boundary with Bradford.

·  It was hoped that the ballroom could be restored and open for use to the wider community.

·  The importance for new building to be of a quality design.

·  Concern that some of the existing buildings were falling into a state of disrepair.

·  Concern regarding the loss of Greenbelt land.

·  Provision of highways measures, traffic lights and new bus services as proposed had not happened.

·  A request for developers to work with the Aireborough Civic Society.

·  School places and children having to travel by car to school adding to traffic problems.

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

·  Concern regarding the quality of some of the new building and assurances that new build would be of a quality design.

·  A request for a more extensive site visit.

·  Concern regarding the loss of sustainability features.

·  Concern regarding none delivery of the Section 106 infrastructure.

·  Work should be carried out with those who commission GP services.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.