Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an outline planning application for residential development of up to 550 houses including means of access to Land at Lane Side Farm, Victoria Road, Churwell, Morley, LS27 7PA

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline application for residential development of up to 550 houses including means of access to land at Lane Side Farm, Victoria Road, Churwell, Morley, LS27 7PA.

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

The Chief Planning Officer together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  The application site extends to 24.02 hectares positioned to the east of Victoria Road between the settlements of Morley and Churwell

·  The proposal is for outline planning permission for the residential development of the 24.02 hectare site to deliver circa 550 dwellings that would provide a combination of 2,3 and 4 bedroom units comprising a mixture of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings

·  A single vehicular access to the site is proposed from Victoria Road. This primary access is located towards the south-west corner of the site onto Victoria Road. It comprises a standard junction with a right turn lane from Victoria Road into the site and a 6.75metre width carriageway within the site that is widened to 7.3m for the initial length from Victoria Road. A second vehicle access was to be provided off Victoria Road to be used in the event of an emergency.

·  The inclusion of satisfactory road safety audits on the primary and secondary access

·  The outline application seeks determination of the; principle of the development and the means of access into the site only.

The Panel then heard from Councillor R Finnigan, (Morley Ward Member) who spoke against the application, suggesting development on greenbelt sites was not acceptable when brown field sites were available. He said the application had attracted in excess of 1000 objections many raising concern over access arrangements, traffic congestion, the possible lack of school places and Health Care provision may be affected.

Councillor Finnigan suggested that the development may create up to 1000 vehicle movements each day resulting in out of peak time congestion problems, it would also lead to high pollution levels particularly in the Chapel Hill area.

In responding Officers’ clarified that the application was not a greenbelt site, on the issue of a lack of school places, a representative of Children’s Services said there was sufficient capacity in the area but parents requesting a school within a reasonable walking distance may be disappointed. If the development was to proceed, a review of the primary provision would be required after the provision of 240 homes which would be controlled through the planning permission

The Panel also heard from the applicant’s representative who reported that the application was submitted in accordance with the site allocation plan. It was further reported that as part of the Section 106 Agreement a contribution towards off site highway works was to be made, together with the reservation of a parcel of land for a new two form entry primary school, should it be required.

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

·  Access into the site was not ideal, a second access point required pursuing

·  Parents not receiving the offer of a school place within a reasonable walking distance was “unpalatable”

·  The location of the proposed new primary school was an important factor

·  An off-site highway improvement scheme may reduce congestion in the area

·  It was suggested that the 5 year housing supply target was too high, and that it required reducing

In responding to the last bullet point, the Head of Legal Services drew Members attention to section 8.14 of the submitted report which states;

Accordingly, the Council is now in the position that it does not have a 5 year housing supply and the policies within the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy that are relevant to the supply of housing are considered to be out of date. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is, therefore, now particularly relevant, which states the following:

“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

For decision-taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out?of?date, granting permission unless:

–– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

–– Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted.”

It is important to note that an ‘out of date’ policy does not become irrelevant and it is therefore the case that an assessment must be made in respect of the weight to be attached to such policies in the planning balance of decision making overall.

In summing up the Chair said that he accepted there remained mixed views about the proposal but a decision was required

At this point in the discussion Councillor Campbell moved an amendment requiring the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval in principle (subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement) and following the provision of a revised site access plan to conform to Planning Policy Guidelines

In offering advice the Head of Legal Services clarified that the Panel were considering an outline planning application for the principle of development together with full detailed permission for the means of access both of which  required determination, and all other details being dealt with under the Reserved Matters Application.

The Head of Legal Services cautioned that Councillor Campbell’s proposed amendment “altered the essence of the application by seeking a deferral of the means of access”

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost (by majority decision)

Voting on the substantive motion, the recommendation of the Chief Planning Officer as detailed in the submitted report – The motion was won (by majority decision)

RESOLVED -

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) the inclusion of satisfactory road safety audits on the primary and secondary accessand the completion of a S106 agreement to secure the following:

·  Affordable Housing – 15% (with a 60% social rent and 40% submarket split);

·  An Off-site Highway Works contribution of £1.5M;

·  Reservation of a parcel of land of no less than 1.8 hectares to accommodate the provision of a new two form entry primary school and should it be required, the provision of the new school on the application site or, alternatively, within the catchment of the site to be delivered prior to the occupation of the 241^stdwelling;

·  Public open space on site of the size to comply with Core Strategy Policy G4;

·  Provision of a Sustainable Travel Fund of £338,167.50;

·  Improvements to two bus shelters (ref 11354 and 10328) to provide for an upgrade to have real time passenger information displays to the sum of £40,000;

·  Travel Plan Review fee of £4,750.

(ii)  That in the event of the Section 106 having not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.