Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development (up to 380 dwellings), a convenience store and public open space

(report attached)

  (Having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this matter, Councillor Nash withdrew from the meeting)

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

  Officers presented the report which related to proposals for a major residential development of up to 380 dwellings, with convenience store and public open space on a PAS site at Breary Lane East, Bramhope

  The application was outlined with details being provided in respect of the access arrangements, including emergency vehicle access; the transport assessment with concerns that the impact of the development had been underestimated in the assessment provided by the applicant; relocation of bus stops and that Metro had concerns about this aspect of the proposals and education provision, with the site being offered for a school being designated for a different use

  Although the proposals would bring some benefits, it was the view of Officers that these were not outweighed by the concerns which existed with the development and because of this, Officers were recommending refusal of the application, with reasons for refusal being included in the report before Panel

  Details of the Council’s five year housing land supply were outlined, as on the previous application considered by Panel (minute 40 above refers).  Members were informed that one difference in respect of this application was around land availability.  The site was located in a housing market characteristic area and there were other suitable sites which were coded green and amber in the Site Allocations DPD map

  The Panel considered the application and raised concerns about the siting of some of the greenspace within the Green Belt.  To address this, the Chief Planning Officer proposed an amendment of reason for refusal 1 to include the words “…without development in the Green Belt therefore leading to the loss of Green Belt in conflict with section 9 of the NPPF”

  Members discussed this approach being adopted for all applications but whilst noting Members’ concerns, it was felt by the Chair and Chief Planning Officer that each case had to be considered on its merits

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1  The Local Planning Authority considers that the release of this site

for housing development would be premature being contrary to Policy N34 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and contrary to Paragraphs 85 bullet point 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The suitability of the site for housing purposes needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan.  The location and size of the site means that the proposal does not fulfil the criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved the Leeds City Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013 to justify early release ahead of the comprehensive assessment of safeguarded land being undertaken in the Site Allocations Plan.  It is anticipated that the Site Allocations Plan work will identify which sites will be brought forward for development in the life of the Plan, together with the infrastructure which will be needed to support sustainable growth, including additional schools provisions and where that would be best located.  It is considered that releasing this site in advance of that work would not be justified and would prejudice the comprehensive planning of future growth and infrastructure of Bramhope in a plan-led way, without development in the Green Belt therefore leading to the loss of Green Belt in conflict with section 9 of the NPPF

2  The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that the proposals can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily on the local highway network.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies GP5 and T2 of the adopted UDP Review and Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF which requires development not to create or materially add to problems of safety on the highway network

3  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development does not provide a suitable means of access into the site and that as such the proposals would be detrimental to the safe and free flow of traffic and pedestrian and cycle user convenience and safety.  For these reasons the application does not comply with Policies GP5, T2, TDB and T5 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006, Policies T2 of the emerging core strategy and guidance contained within the adopted Street Design Guide SPD

4  The site does not meet the minimum accessibility standards for residential development as set out in the Council’s emerging Core Strategy.  The applicant has so far failed to offer suitable mitigation and as such it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and to the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF and the 12 core planning principles which requires that growth be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and to focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable

5  In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the proposed development so far fails to provide necessary contributions for the provision of affordable housing, education, greenspace, public transport, travel planning and off site highway works, contrary to the requirements of Policies H11, H12, H13, N2, N4, T2, GP5 and GP7 of the adopted UDP Review (2006) and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to Policies H5, H8, T2, G4 and ID2 of the Draft Leeds Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF.  The Council anticipates that a Section 106 agreement covering these matters could be provided in the event of an appeal but at present reserves the right to contest these matters should the Section 106 agreement not be completed or cover all the requirements satisfactorily

6  From the information submitted, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development of the scale indicated can achieve satisfactory standards of design, landscaping and residential amenity and provision of on-site Greenspace, contrary to Policies GP5, N2, N4 and N12 of the adopted UDP Review (2006) and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to Policies P10, P12 and G4 of the Draft Leeds Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF

7  It has so far not been demonstrated that part of the site is not required for the provision of a school, contrary to Policy SG3 of the adopted UDP Review (2006) and Policy P9 of the Draft Leeds Core Strategy