Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development of up to 150 dwellings including means of access

(report attached)

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

  The North and East Area Planning Manager presented a report on an outline application for the principle of development and access on 8.79 ha site, part of which was designated as Protected Area of Search (PAS) land and part being located in the Green Belt.  Although the application suggested up to 150 dwellings on the site, a proposed layout plan showed around 110 – 120 dwellings

  Members were informed that a key aspect of the development was flooding, with there being a history of flood events on the site. To mitigate against this, the developer was proposing to raise the levels of the central area of the site and provide a cellular storage system under the road which would release water at controlled rates into the nearby beck. It was also proposed to create flood storage areas adjacent to Collingham Beck to the south of the site and erect a flood wall opposite Crabtree Green.  Following the site visit earlier in the day, the North and East Area Planning Manager had sought further information from the Environment Agency about the flood mitigation measures and highlighted to Panel that whilst the proposed measures would ease the situation for residents of Millbeck Green and Crabtree Green, it did not constitute a flood alleviation scheme

  The report before Panel recommended the application be refused with seven reasons for refusal being suggested to Members.  In terms of the interim PAS policy, the site did not fulfil the criteria for early release of the site

  The receipt of two further representations was reported.  A detailed letter from the applicant was summarised to the Panel and concerns raised by Councillor Castle were outlined for Members’ information

  If minded to accept the reasons for refusal, an amendment to reason 1 was proposed, to remove ‘and scale’ from the sixth line down.  Also on reason 4, to correct a typing error to remove ‘access point’ from the fourth line down and replace with ‘development’

  The Transport Development Services Manager referred to the recent submission by the applicant of a more detailed plan of the access arrangements, which subject to further work, might be supported by Officers in principle.  Further discussions would also be required in respect of the junction at Harewood Road, which experienced queuing traffic.  The applicant had submitted a proposal to signalise the junction of School Lane/Mill Lane and the A58, and that discussions on this would be required.  Notwithstanding the recent revisions to the highways proposals the reason for refusal set out in the submitted report remained valid at this time

  Members discussed the proposals, with the main issues being:

·  the guidance set out in the NPPF which encouraged a plan-led system and the need to have regard to the Core Strategy and Site Allocations process

·  that the Council was committed to building homes in the correct location and this site was not suitable

·  the need for issues relating to education provision and health provision to be included in the reasons for refusal

·  the scale of the proposed development which at 2.5 and 3 storey dwellings was not in keeping with the existing properties in Collingham

·  concerns that the flood mitigation measures were inadequate

·  concerns about highways measures; that additional proposals had come forward which were not in the public domain and that local residents and Ward Members had not had the opportunity to consider and comment on them.  Concerns were also raised that continuing discussions on these issues could undermine the highways reason for refusal in the event an appeal was lodged, if the application was refused

The Panel considered how to proceed.  The Head of Planning

Services outlined the revisions to the proposed reasons for refusal and on the issue of public notification of revisions to applications, stated the importance of local people and Ward Members being made aware of any alterations to proposals

  RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the following reasons:

  1 The LPA considers that the release of the site for housing development would be premature, being contrary to policy N34 of the adopted UDP Review (2006) and contrary to Paragraph 85, bullet point 4 of the NPPF.  The suitability of the site for housing purposes as part of the future expansion of Collingham needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.  The location of the site in relation to the village of Collingham means that the proposal does not fulfil the criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved by 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.  It is anticipated that the Site Allocations Plan work will identify which sites will be brought forward for development in the life the Plan together with the infrastructure which will be needed to support sustainable growth, including additional schools provision and where that would best be located.  It is considered that releasing this site in advance of that work would not be justified and would prejudice the comprehensive planning of future growth and infrastructure of the village in a plan-led way

  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 area 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 Collingham which is consistent with the size, function and sustainability credentials of a smaller settlement.  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. educational and health infrastructure, roads and public transport improvements.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy and SP3 of the UDP Review.  In advance of the Site Allocations Plan the proposal represents such a substantial expansion of the existing smaller settlement that it is likely to adversely impact on the sustainability and on character and identity of Collingham, contrary to Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy, SP3 of the UDP Review and guidance on the core planning principles underpinning the planning system as set out in the NPPF

  3 The development of this substantial site for residential purposes has poor sustainability credentials and does not meet the minimum accessibility standards as set out in the Core Strategy in terms of the frequency of bus services to give access to employment, secondary education and town/city centres.  In the absence of any planned or proposed improvements it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policy T2 of the adopted UDP Review (2006) and to the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF and the 12 core planning principles which requires that growth be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable

  4 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that the local highway infrastructure, including the wider network which will be affected by additional traffic as a result of this development, is capable of safely accommodating the proposed development and absorbing pressures placed 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 Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policies GPT5, T2, T2B and T5 of the adopted UDP Review and the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF which combined requires development not to create or materially add to problems of safety on the highway network

  5 The Local Planning Authority considers that the development of this site for up to 150 dwellings in the manner proposed as set out within the indicative site layout, would be harmful to and out of character with the adjacent spatial pattern of existing residential development within this part of Collingham, which would result in an overly intensive form of development that would fail to take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions.  The application also fails to provide information relating to levels and sections and would locate an area of Greenspace within the Green Belt, all of which could be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.  Furthermore, the design and materials of the proposed bridge over Collingham Beck are not considered to be sympathetic to the rural character of the area.  As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy P10 of the Core Strategy, Policy N12 of the UDP Review (2006), the guidance contained within the SPG ‘Neighbourhoods for Living’ and the guidance within the NPPF

  6  In the absence of a detailed tree survey and further habitat and ecology surveys, it has not been possible for the LPA to properly consider and assess the effect of the proposed development on existing trees within and adjacent to the site and the potential ecological implications.  In the absence of this information it is considered that the proposed development will be harmful to the rural character of the area, contrary to Policy P12 of the Core Strategy, Policies N49 and N51 of the Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and the guidance within the NPPF

  7 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, drainage and flood alleviation works contrary to the requirements of Policies H11, H12, H13 N2, N4, T2, GP5 and GP7 of the adopted UDP Review and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to Policies H5, H8, P7, P9, T2, G4 and ID2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF.  The Council anticipates that a Section 106 agreement covering these matters could be provided in the event of an appeal but at present reserves the right to contest these matters should the Section 106 agreement not be completed or cover all the requirements satisfactorily