Agenda item

Further to minute 49 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 13^th December 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on this application, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on the formal outline application for proposed employment development for Use Classes B1(b) and B1 (c) (Research and Development/Light Industrial Uses), B2 (General Industrial Uses) and B8 (Storage and Distribution Uses)

(report attached)

  Further to minute 49 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 13^th December 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on an application for employment development, Members considered the formal, outline application

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

Officers presented the report which sought the principle of development, with all other matters reserved.  Members noted that the site was allocated for employment use following the UDP Inspector’s recommendation of this use for the whole of the site

Detailed highways considerations were presented, including the improvements proposed as part of the application.  Members’ comments made in response to the position statement, in respect of securing access from Nepshaw Lane South had been investigated, however as this would require third party land to construct a substantial, signalised junction, for what would result in a small change to the flow of traffic, Highways Officers were of the view this was not justifiable

  Receipt of a further letter of representation was reported as was an additional representation from a Ward Member, which was read out to Panel

  Minor typing errors in the submitted report were corrected

  The Panel was also informed that in terms of timescales, the applicant had stated that five years would be too short a period to submit all the reserved matters and the applicant proposed to submit phase 1 within 5 years and up to 10 years for the remainder, and that these phases would need to be defined on a plan

  Members heard representations from a Gildersome Parish Councillor who outlined concerns about the application which included:

·  the lack of need for the proposals

·  that brownfield sites should be developed first

·  environmental factors

·  highways issues

·  the extent of development in the area

·  residential amenity issues for those residents closest to the site

The Panel then heard representations from the applicant’s agent who

provided information on the proposals, which included:

·  that the site was the only one in the west of the city which could locate a large employment use

·  that 1500 jobs could be created through the development of the site

·  that the Highways Agency had lifted its Holding Direction

·  that highway improvements would be made through the introduction of a weight limit for HGVs travelling through Gildersome

·  the length of time which had been taken to bring this site forward and that close working with Officers had produced a scheme which was supported

·  that bus improvements would be provided through the scheme

Members discussed the application, with the main issues relating to:

·  the validity of the application as no access was included

·  highways issues

·  drainage

·  access arrangements

·  impact of the proposals on Gildersome

·  the closing of the gap between Morley and Gildersome

·  the likely development of the site, with concerns this should not commence at the centre of the site

·  the limited nature of the submitted application

·  boundary treatments to the closest residential dwellings

·  a lack of clarity on what Members were being asked to consider

The Head of Planning Services stated that in assessing the application

he was of the view that Members were being asked to consider whether the access points were acceptable and by implication, to accept a floorspace limitation, with the Highways Officer advised that the transport assessment was based on 87000 sq m

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred for one cycle and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report which provides greater precision on the application, including details about the width of the landscaping strip around the nearby houses to form a buffer to the industrial units and highway impacts of the proposals, including further details in respect of an access through Nepshaw Lane and why this was not being provided; more information on phasing, concerns about the widths of ‘notional’ planting generally and not just around the houses; the need to address concerns at safeguarding residents; concerns at the joining of Gildersome and Morley settlements; the need to settle the location of the access points and the strategic need for the smaller units