Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief planning Officer setting out pre-application proposals for a residential led mixed use development

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments.

Report Attached.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which introduced a Pre application enquiry PREAPP/15/00745 for a residential led mixed use development on land at M1Juntion 45 to Junction 44 on slip.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the application.

The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that the estimated amount of housing

which could be delivered was less than assumed in the Site Allocation Plan as a motorway service area (MSA) was now proposed on part of the site.

The Chief Planning Officer also requested that Members give consideration as to whether this was a good location for a service station and whether the adjoining housing development would be complimentary, bearing in mind the accommodation of traffic from the housing development and users of the service station.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  That this was two applications and adjoining sites resulting in two schemes being presented at the same time;

·  Confirmation was given to Members that this site had previously been allocated for employment use in the UDP;

·  The Planning Officer provided an overview of the surrounding area specifically that the site was close to Temple Newsam Country Park and the landfill site at Skelton Grange which was due to close in 2016

The applicant for the residential led development addressed the Panel. The following issues were highlighted:

·  The total development would consist of 1,800 units (including greenbelt land), equating to 35-40 dwellings per hectare, the designs for these being at an advanced stage. The developer was of the opinion that these were high quality designs and that the development would contribute to the Leeds growth agenda;

·  The proposed planning application would be for 1100 dwellings with a primary school or 1000 dwellings with a through school site.

·  The developer confirmed that they had been engaging with stakeholders and interested parties since 2013;

·  Members were informed that a primary school and a food store would be built within the site;

·  The site formed part of a former mining area and the developer would work with the local topography;

·  It was confirmed that the primary access and egress to the development would be via junction 45 of the M1 motorway. Due to the proximity of the motorway and the proposed service station the applicant suggested that careful landscaping of the site would take place

In response to Members comments and questions, the following were discussed:

·  The zoning of the land and how much of it was now going to be given to residential use. It was confirmed that all the site shown to the Panel would be allocated for housing;

·  The proximity of the site to a sewage works and a tip were noted by Members which would need to be considered when landscaping the site;

·  Pontefract Lane was discussed in detail, which, if it was to be used by the housing development, would need to undergo significant upgrading works, it was currently shut to the public. It was noted that Pontefract Lane could possibly be used by public transport. The developer confirmed that the primary access to the housing development would be via the motorway junction;

·  Members also suggested that the site was in close proximity to Woodlesford and Rothwell and a transport link to these areas would be helpful. The developer confirmed that the option for a transport link would be created to the south-west of the site via Knosthorpe Lane;

·  Public transport was considered to be an important consideration by the Panel in order for the development to be sustainable, as currently anyone living on the proposed development would require their own transport. The developer confirmed they were still in discussion with highway officers to address this issue.

The applicant for the motorway service station addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

·  That the applicant was a successful and experienced operator of motorway service stations;

·  The motorway network required regular and good service facilities for people visiting or passing through the area; and

·  The job opportunities that would be available if the proposal was developed and the contribution such a development would make to the wider economy. The developer put specific emphasis on this development being an opportunity to create employment for local people.

The applicant provided detailed information on the distance between the nearest service stations on the M1, M62 and the M621, which demonstrated that there was a need for a motorway service area around this point on the M1.

·  Due to site constraints the site could only potentially house 170 dwellings and that due to a restrictive covenant these could not be delivered anyway.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  The volume of traffic specifically HGVs which might not compliment a residential development in close proximity. The developer provided some clarification that work was on-going with Highways England to ensure a safe design and that to reduce the impact of noise “buffering” was being considered;

·  Members discussed the design of the building in detail and were satisfied with the drawings shown, including the green roof. It was requested that a similar design should be used for the application. The Panel were of the view that good landscaping would be essential to break up the effect of the large car-park; and

·  Members welcomed reference to paying a living wage for staff and considered this a positive statement from the developer.

In summary the developer confirmed that there was still a lot of work to do including the completion of a full Environmental assessment.

Members commented that they were agreeable with a motorway service area being positioned at Junction 45 of the M1, it being a good location. Members were of the opinion that the concept was a good one.

Members considered that a possible visit to Hartshead Service Area (or similar arrangement) should be undertaken to demonstrate how a residential development could work alongside a motorway service area.

RESOLVED – That the applicants be invited to progress their proposals in collaboration with each other