Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer which seeks the views of Members as to whether or not to recommend that sites at Weetwood and Tingley should be included as housing allocations in the Site Allocations Plan (SAP).

(Report attached)

  With reference to discussions held at Development Plan Panel on 13^th January 2015 and Executive Board on 11^th February 2015, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer in respect of two sites within the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) – 3378 Weetwood Lane and 1143B Tingley – and whether to recommend these should be included as housing allocations in the SAP

  Large scale maps of the sites were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and informed Members that both sites were located in the Green Belt; were reasonably accessible; were assets held by the Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company Ltd and were being put forward as enabling development for the benefit of securing international cricket at Headingley, however in terms of the SAP process, Members were informed this last point was a side issue

  The housing targets for North HMCA and the Outer South West HMCA were outlined, with Members being informed that for the North HMCA there was a surplus of 185 units, which did not include site 3378 – Weetwood and for the Outer South West HMCA, there was a shortfall of 166 units; this figure taking into account site 1143B – Tingley

  The Chief Planning Officer stressed that any enabling development justification would need to be considered through the planning application process

  Members discussed the report, with the main issues being raised relating to:

·  the Panel’s previous views and comments on the Weetwood site and that it should be retained as Green Belt, particularly as it prevented coalescence of the settlement and that its loss would lead to urban sprawl, together with the view that this site had been unused for many years; that it was on the fringe of a larger area of land running from Hyde Park towards Otley and that its proposed removal from the Green Belt would have limited impact

·  the lack of detail on the mechanics of the enabling development

·  the benefits which Test Cricket at Headingley brought to Leeds and the need for improvements to be made to the cricket ground in order for Headingley to remain a possible Test Match venue

·  the nature of the decision before the Panel and that planning permission for development was not being considered

·  the lack of detail on what the funds raised from the enabling development would be spent on at Headingley and the possibility of deferring a decision on these sites until further information had been provided

·  the possibility of very special circumstances being put forward by the land owner to justify these sites being considered for residential development

The Panel’s legal adviser – the Head of Service, Strategy and Resources – advised Members that there were two separate processes; the preparation of the SAP which was for this Panel and any consideration of a future planning application which could run in parallel but would be for the Plans Panel to determine.  The matter before the Panel today was to consider whether it was appropriate to allocate these two sites for housing in the SAP.  As had been evidenced at previous meetings,  as part of that process and in order to meet the housing targets in the Core Strategy,  some sites were being proposed to be taken out of the Green Belt.  The main focus of the report before Panel was to consider the Green Belt purposes and whether in order to meet the required target numbers, the sites could and should be taken out.  In respect of the test of very special circumstances, this was a matter for the planning application process and an applicant would need to demonstrate their enabling development case at that time

The Panel continued to discuss the issues, with further comments being made in relation to:

·  the need to include the Weetwood site in the SAP and for the public to be able to express their views on the proposal through the consultation process on the SAP

·  that the SAP needed to take account of wellbeing; the amount of land being proposed to be taken out of the Green Belt and that a surplus of housing existed in the North HMCA

·  the short step between allocating a site for housing and it being developed

·  the need for a carefully worded S106 Agreement, possibly submitted to Panel for consideration, in the event a planning application for enabling development was submitted on these sites

At this point, Councillor B Anderson brought to the Panel’s attention

that he was a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club; that he had not expected the discussion to take the direction it had done and considered whether he should withdraw from the meeting.  The Panel’s legal representative clarified the nature of Councillor Anderson’s interest, which was considered to be an ‘other’ interest rather than a disclosable pecuniary interest as set out in the Localism Act 2011 and the Members Code of Conduct

  Members’ discussions continued:

·  the principle involved in this matter and the possibility that there were other landowners who could put forward a case to justify their sites being considered for housing allocation

·  that there was doubt about the enabling development

·  the possibility of making a case for the Weetwood site in view of its previous history as a sports site (part of the site was a protected playing pitch) but in the case of Tingley, not only was this a considerable distance from Headingley, it had never had a sporting use, with concerns being raised that legal advice might be required on this matter as part of the planning application process

·  the staged process and that including the site in the SAP for housing was the first stage.  The Head of Service, Strategy and Resources stressed that whilst there were two separate processes, they could run in parallel and that for the SAP process, Panel had to be satisfied on the issues raised in paragraph 3.1 of the submitted report

·  the need for clarity in reports in respect of issues relating to S106 and CIL

Members considered how to proceed.  Concerns continued to be

raised about the message which would be sent if Panel agreed these sites could be allocated for housing.  The Chief Planning Officer acknowledged the issues and the questions which had been raised about enabling development.  However, having considered the sites it was the view of Officers that, on balance, the contribution they currently made in Green Belt terms was outweighed by the desirability of them going forward for housing allocation, although this was of course a decision for Panel

  An amendment to the recommendation to enable the sites to be considered separately was made and voted upon, however this did not receive majority support

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and to advise that Development Plan Panel would support the allocation of both of these sites – 3378 Weetwood and 1143B Tingley – for housing

  Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillors, Leadley, Campbell and G Latty required it to be recorded they voted against the matter

  Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor B Anderson required it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter