Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer outlining the application for development of circa 70 dwellings, including access works on land near Ring Road and Calverley Lane, Farsley

(report attached)

  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 approval of an outline application for a residential development of around 70 dwellings, together with access works on a 2.8ha Protected Area of Search (PAS) site close to the Ring Road and Calverley Lane.  A larger PAS site was situated to the north east, known as Kirklees Knowl, which was the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  Although the report had indicated that the decision of the appeal was expected, Members were informed that the Public Inquiry was to be reopened, with the Secretary of State’s decision possibly being made available by the end of the year

  Officers reported the receipt of further representations from Farsley Residents Action Group (FRAG) and 10 separate objectors.  A letter had also been sent to the Chief Planning Officer and further representations from Councillor A Carter and Councillor Wood had been received and were read out to Members 

The Panel was informed that although the majority of the matters raised in the additional representations had been addressed in the report, FRAG had submitted their own bat survey.  The Council’s Nature Conservation Officer had considered this and was satisfied with the original recommendation and comments as set out in the submitted report.  For clarity, the further comments of the Council’s Nature Conservation Officer were read out to Panel

In terms of the principle of development, Members were referred to the Council’s Interim PAS policy which had been approved by the Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013, which had sought to ensure the availability of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land delivery by selectively releasing some designated PAS sites in advance of the preparation of the Site Allocations Plan.  In terms of the criteria drawn up within the Interim PAS policy, the subject site was considered to meet all three of the criteria which had been set and was therefore acceptable in principle.  Officers had also concluded that there was no clear link between the site and Kirklees Knowl for example no joint access was required

Reference was made to Counsel’s opinion provided by the applicant on the cost implications of further delay in consideration of the proposals pending the Kirklees Knowl decision and the view of Legal Services on this, as outlined in paragraph 10.28 of the submitted report

Issues relating to highways, visual amenity, character and residential amenity were outlined.  If minded to accept the Officer’s recommendation, further conditions were proposed regarding provision of parking spaces for the recreation ground; the submission and approval of a construction management plan and an additional S106 contribution of £65,000 for a cycle/pedestrian route from the Ring Road to Dawson’s Corner if the Kirklees Knowl site was developed within 5 years, with the sum being returned if this was not the case

The Panel then heard representations from an objector who attended the meeting and provided information which included:

·  the impact of the proposals on the Conservation Area

·  bats

·  the Interim PAS policy

·  the previous views of an Inspector in respect of the Kirklees Knowl site

·  sustainability issues

·  possible further action if the application was approved

·  the need to defer determination of the application for a further bat survey and the Secretary of State’s decision on Kirklees Knowl

Through questioning by Members, reference was made to legislation in

respect of ecology and planning; the minimum number of bat surveys to be undertaken and a recent relevant legal case

  The Panel then heard representations from the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting and provided information which included:

·  the application met all of the criteria in the Interim PAS policy

·  the Kirklees Knowl site was separate to the subject site

·  the S106 requirements had been met

·  the applicant’s ecologist was satisfied the guidelines had been met and the Council’s Nature Conservation Officer was also content with the ecological information which had been submitted

·  planning permission had been granted on other PAS sites in Leeds

The Panel discussed the proposals, with the main issues being:

·  the timing of the application and the desire of the applicant to pursue this rather than waiting until the Kirklees Knowl appeal decision had been made (where the date for re-opening the Inquiry and Secretary of State’s decision had already been considerably challenged)

·  that this site and the Kirklees Knowl site were inextricably linked and that considering this application was premature

·  education provision

·  the bat survey and the court case referred to by the objector

·  the nature of the legal advice given to Officers

·  the reference to this site and Kirklees Knowl in the UDPR

·  the highway contributions

·  the impact of a decision on the application in relation to the Kirklees Knowl inquiry

Officers provided further information, with the Panel being informed:

·  the legal case referred to by an objector was case specific and examined the issue around a bat survey and the need for sufficient information to be provided to a Plans Panel to enable it to carry out its statutory duty in respect of protected species

·  the Council’s legal advice on the facts of the case, i.e. the delay in determining the application and that there would need to be a clear link with the Kirklees Knowl decision to justify delaying consideration of the application for the subject site

·  the view of the UDP Inspector who stated that the two sites should be considered together, however that had been superseded by the introduction of the Interim PAS policy and the NPPF

·  that for the subject site, a range of highway works was proposed and these would not change if the Kirklees Knowl site became available.  Works which were variable would be the works to the junction of the Ring Road

·  that the Kirklees Knowl inquiry had been reopened to consider two issues; the 5 year land supply, (following the Core Strategy Inspector’s Proposed Modifications) and a challenge to ecological issues regarding bats.  Regarding the Kirklees Knowl site, this did not fit with the Interim PAS policy.  Although the Interim PAS policy was a material planning consideration it was not part of the Development Plan, which along with policy N34, was the starting point for the determination of the application

·  that the Council had a 5.8 year land supply (including PAS sites such as the application land) in a mix of brownfield and greenfield sites which helped to create a positive development context

·  that the credibility of refusing large sites depended on the LPA’s approach to dealing with small sites, in accordance with the Interim Policy

The Panel continued to discuss the application, with the following

points being made:

·  that the application had been submitted and had to be dealt with

·  that a decision on the Kirklees Knowl site could be some way off

·  that the issues of bats had been considered and the comments of the Council’s Nature Conservation Officer had been provided

·  that the required S106 contributions were being offered

·  the nature of the link between the two sites; the length of time the owner had waited to develop the site and why a decision at this time was critical, rather than waiting for the Secretary of State’s decision on Kirklees Knowl

·  the impact of the Ring Road on the amenity of the residents who would live on the site; that further work was needed to protect their amenity and concerns about noise issues.  Members were informed such issues would be dealt with at Reserved Matters stage

·  the narrowness of Calverley Lane; the view that works could be done to overcome this; concerns that the proposed highway works would not sufficiently mitigate for the traffic movements and that the highways proposals were not adequate.  The Transport Development Services Manager provided further details of the works to be undertaken and the road widths.  Members were also informed that a road safety audit of all the off-site highway works would be requested

The Panel considered how to proceed:

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for

approval, subject to provision of a satisfactory road safety audit; the conditions set out in the submitted report; additional conditions providing 8 parking spaces on the highway and 12 parking spaces on site for the recreation ground; submission and approval of a construction management plan and following completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters:

·  affordable housing 15% provision with 50% social rent/50% submarket housing

·  education contribution of £333,467.08 (based on 70 houses, contribution would vary depending on final number of units)

·  transport SPD contribution figure of £826 per dwelling

·  metrocard contribution figure of £462 per dwelling

·  travel plan review fee of £2,500

·  contribution of £40,000 towards the improvement of Rodley roundabout

·  greenspace contribution of £1511.20

·  £65,000 for a cycle/pedestrian route from the Ring Road to Dawson’s Corner in the event the development proposals on the Kirklees Knowl site were allowed; this sum to be ring fenced for this specific purpose and to be returnable in 5 years if it was not used

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

  Following consideration of this matter, Councillors C Gruen, P Gruen, G Latty and Walshaw left the meeting