Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an outline application (all matters reserved except for partial means of access to, but not within the Site) for residential development up to 770 dwellings and convenience store together with creation of new areas of public open space and drainage attenuation works to land at Dunningley Lane, Tingley,

WF3 1SJ.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline planning application (All Matters Reserved except for partial means of access to, but not within the site) for residential development up to 770 dwellings and convenience store together with creation of new drainage attenuation works to land at Dunningley Lane, Tingley, WF3 1SJ.

The Chief Planning Officer reported that the application was now the subject of an appeal against non-determination.

Addressing the report the Chief Planning officer said that in order to contest the appeal, the putative reasons for refusal, as recommended by officers and included in the submitted report, were being put forward for Members consideration:

It was also reported that until a revised Transport Assessment and supporting access information was received and assessed, the appealed scheme was considered to be unacceptable on highway grounds and this was reflected in the outstanding holding direction issued by Highway’s England, which was currently in place until August 2017.

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

·  There were a significant number of objections

·  The application was premature

·  There were strong reasons for refusal on highway grounds and this was reflected in the outstanding holding direction issued by Highway’s England

·  Lengthy planning history previously intended for industrial use

·  Isolated location

·  No near-by school provision

·  Unreasonable behaviour by the applicant

·  It was suggested  that an award of costs be sought, if the appeal was determined in favour of the city council

Responding to the issue of seeking an award of costs, the Chief Planning Officer said due consideration would be given to this issue at a later date.

RESOLVED – Had Members been in a position to determine the application it would have been refused for the following putative reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to policy SP1 of the adopted Core Strategy which sets out the spatial development strategy for Leeds, being based on the Leeds settlement hierarchy and which aims to concentrate the majority of development within and adjacent to the main urban area and major settlements where it can benefit from existing services, adequate levels of accessibility and priorities for urban regeneration. The appeal site is isolated from existing patterns of development and is neither located within, nor forms an extension to, the Main Urban Area, a Major Settlement or a Smaller Settlement. The proposed location for the residential development is not considered to be a sustainable.

2. Development in this unsustainable, remote location is contrary to paragraph 70 of the NPPF which in part provides that decisions “…ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services”. The proposal is also contrary to paragraph 38 of the NPPF which seeks that, where practical “…key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties”. The appeal site lies outside the Main Urban Area, in a location which is unacceptably remote from local services. The sustainability-related measures promoted are insufficient to offset or outweigh this important deficiency. The proposed location is not sustainable for residential development.

3. There is insufficient information submitted with the application to demonstrate that an acceptable level of accessibility can be achieved for the scale of development proposed. The appeal site does not meet the accessibility standards for housing to be located within a 5 minute walk to a bus stop that offers a direct service to a major public transport interchange at a 15 minute frequency as set out in the adopted Accessibility Standards of the Core Strategy. The proposal is contrary to policies SP1, T2 and H2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and guidance in the NPPF.

4. The appeal site is allocated as a Protected Area of Search (constituting safeguarded land for the purposes of the NPPF, paragraph 85, etc.) through (saved) Policy N34 of the UDP Review. The release of this PAS site for housing would be contrary to Policy N34. Development of the PAS site would unacceptably undermine the plan led system and be contrary to paragraph 85 (bullet 4) of the NPPF which states that “planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review, which proposes the development”.

5. Development of the appeal site would predetermine decisions relating to the scale and phasing of new housing development and the designation of safeguarded land for homes and jobs beyond the plan period that is set out within the (highly advanced) Submission Draft/Site Allocations Plan (SAP). The proposal would have a prejudicial, pre-determinative effect on decision-taking with regards to directing new development through the SAP and community involvement in the plan-making process. The appeal site would account for 18% of the total housing site allocations for the Outer South West HMCA. The development is considered to be unacceptably premature, contrary to the Planning Practice Guidance.

6. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the local highway infrastructure, including the proposed site access off A653 Dewsbury Road and off A654 Thorpe Lane, and the wider highway network which will be affected by additional traffic as a result of this development, is capable of safely accommodating these impacts and adequately accommodating the attendant increase in traffic, cycle and pedestrian movements generated by the proposed development. The proposal is contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the 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, environment or efficiency on the highway network.

7. In the absence of a suitable Section 106 agreement the proposed development fails to provide necessary contributions and/or obligations for the provision and delivery of affordable housing, housing for independent living, greenspace, travel planning, public transport enhancements, local facilities and off site highway works, without which the proposed development would fail to meet directly (and fairly and reasonably) related needs of the City and of prospective residents, contrary to the requirements of Policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review, related Supplementary Planning Documents, Policies H5, H8, P9, T2, G4 and ID2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and the NPPF.