Agenda item

Further to minute 177 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 10^th April 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on an outline application for means of access from Bradford Road and to erect residential development, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

(report attached)

  Further to minute 177 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 10^th April 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on an outline application for means of access from Bradford Road and to erect a residential development, Members considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  The South Area Planning Manager presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal of the application of the 13.50 hectare PAS site, as set out in the report before Panel.  In relation to the first reason, a minor amendment was recommended to Panel to include reference to policy GP5, T2, the Street Design Guide SPD and Neighbourhoods for Living.  It was noted that in respect of the third reason for refusal, which related to highways matters, that further detailed plans had been submitted very recently and although some issues remained outstanding, it was possible these could be resolved at a later stage

  When Panel had considered the site in April 2014, concerns had been raised about the coalescence of communities; however it was felt that a reason for refusal on these grounds could not be sustained, in view of the UDP Inspector’s comments about land separating local communities and the applicant’s agreement to address this concern at Reserved Matters stage, through the proposed layout

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

·  the likelihood of an appeal being lodged if the application was refused; that the S106 Agreement was not disputed and could be signed at this stage

·  that additional information in respect of highways had been submitted to Officers over several months, with increased dialogue in the days before the meeting

·  the travelling times on public transport from the site to Leeds and Wakefield, included in the report, with concerns these were not accurate

·  that the location of the site was highly accessible

  The Panel then heard representations from two speakers who were supporting the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and who provided information which included:

·  the current pressure on infrastructure, including health and education facilities

·  the impact of additional traffic on the roads and in terms of additional carbon emissions

·  concerns about suitable access to the site for emergency vehicles

·  no additional bus routes were being incorporated into the proposals and that residents of the proposed development would need to rely heavily on cars for daily journeys

·  concerns about the proposed highways measures to accommodate the development

·  the need for a holistic approach to development in the area

·  the lack of accommodation for older people

·  that the development was not sustainable and would lead to coalescence of East Ardsley and West Ardsley

The Panel discussed the application, with the main issues relating to:

·  highways issues

·  the local concerns raised about sustainability and lack of infrastructure which supported the argument that the application was premature

·  that the application was not in line with Interim PAS policy

·  the comments of the agent regarding the S106 Agreement and that the reason for refusal relating to this could be expected to fall away if the S106 was signed

·  alternative uses for the site, particularly for education use in view of an additional high school being required for the area in the future

RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the following

reasons:

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the release of the site for housing development would be premature, being contrary to Policy N34 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and contrary to Paragraph 85, bullet point 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The suitability of the site for housing needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan.  The location and/or size of the site means that the proposal does not fulfil the exceptional criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved the Leeds City Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013 to justify early release ahead of the comprehensive assessment of safeguarded land being undertaken in the Site Allocations Plan.  Furthermore, the ongoing Site Allocations Plan identifies other potential sites which are directly related and share a boundary with the application site which if allocated will need to be comprehensively planned, including any infrastructure requirements, which may be prejudiced if not considered together, with reference to policy GP5, T2, the Street Design Guide SPD and Neighbourhoods for Living

2 The proposal is contrary to the Core Strategy which seeks to concentrate the majority of new development within and adjacent to the main urban areas and major settlements.  The Site Allocations Plan is the right vehicle to consider the scale and location of new development and supporting infrastructure which should take place in East Ardsley which is consistent with this size, function and sustainability credentials.  Furthermore, the Core Strategy states that the ‘priority for identifying land for development will be previously developed land, other infill and key locations identified as sustainable extensions’ which have not yet been established through the Site Allocations Plan, and the Core Strategy recognises the key role of new and existing infrastructure in delivering future development which has not yet been established through the Site Allocations Plan e.g. doctors surgeries, schools, roads.  As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP1

3 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that the local highway infrastructure is capable of safely accommodating the proposed access and absorbing the additional pressures place on it by the increase in traffic, cycle and pedestrian movements which will be brought about by the proposed development.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies GP5, T2, T2B and T5 of the adopted UDP Review

4 In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the proposed development so far fails to provide necessary contributions for the provision of affordable housing, education, Greenspace, public transport, travel planning and off site highway works contrary to policies of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to policies of the Draft Leeds Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Council anticipates that a Section 106 Agreement covering these matters will be provided prior to any appeal Inquiry but at present reserves the right to contest these matters should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed to cover all the requirements satisfactorily