Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for an outline planning application for industrial development (Use Classes B2/B8) and ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)) with matters reserved except for access at Land at William Parkin Way, Leeds, LS15

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an outline planning application for industrial development (Use Classes B2/B8 and ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)) with matters reserved except for access at land at William Parkin Way, Leeds, LS15.

Members were shown a presentation.

The presenting officer provided the following information:

·  It was noted that this site had been subject to the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) legal challenge which had now been resolved following receipt of the Inspector’s decision letter and Council’s formal ratification of this development plan at its meeting on 17^th January 2024.

·  At this stage, only the principle of bringing the site forward for employment purposes along with access had been formally applied for.

·  Over 12 months the applicants, their agents and officers had been working on several interrelated matters raised through the application including:

o  Highways

o  Landscaping

o  Ecology

o  Drainage

·  This site is a triangular piece of land measuring approximately 28ha, situated between William Parkin Way, the M1 Motorway, the Leeds Leeds-Selby railway line, and the motorway junction to the south. This site has an elevated position in relation to the surrounding area.

·  The land is greenfield with a number of mature trees along the south/east edge adjacent to the M1 and along the railway embankment. It was noted that 40% of the site would be retained as woodland and enhanced with landscaped areas.

·  Within the site there are several Public Rights of Way (PROW) and Bridleways which were to be retained.

·  A recently constructed green bridge spans William Parkin Way to provide access to ‘The Springs’ retail park.

·  The surrounding area is a mix of residential, commercial and leisure.

·  The Panel were advised that Plot 1 was at the highest point with Plot 6 at the lowest, and the building heights would be in dictated by their position on the site with Plot 6 being the highest.

·  The design of the site was not for consideration at this stage but would follow a similar design to other commercial areas.

Cllr Dobson the Local Ward Member for Garforth and Swillington addressed the Panel, making the following points:

·  This had been a long process to get to this stage, and he hoped that the development would be brought back to Panel for any further stages in the development and decision-making process with no delegation to officers for determination.

·  This is a green land site which forms a natural boundary between the communities. He was of the view that it was a shame that this land was to be used for development. He thought it was appropriate that some of the green space was to be retained, along with access to the Public Rights of Way, as without these there would be implications for the local residents and also the wildlife in the area.

·  Appropriate mitigation should be considered to take into account that this was home to wildlife.

·  It was his view that access to the site would be challenging.

·  He informed the Panel that Garforth and Swillington Ward Members were not in support of this development particularly due to it involving removal of a remaining greenspace in the area.

·  If the application was to proceed, S106 and CIL monies should be secured, and it was important they were then used to directly benefit the community.

·  Notwithstanding the Inspector’s decision on the remittal of the SAP. Members still needed to be aware that this stage could still be challenged.

·  He advised the Panel that he knew of a petition in objection to proposals for development and this should be considered.

In response to questions from the Panel, further information was provided:

·  It was noted that the applicants had made semi-regular contact with the community and the Ward Members but there had been no response from officers to questions from Ward Members.

·  No firm details were known regarding the petition from local residents which Cllr Dobson had said was being formulated and in circulation.

·  Connection to the site for the community would be from Garforth along Barrowby Lane then through Barrowby Woods. Access into the site would be difficult.

·  In relation to the heights of the proposed buildings, it was the view that this may have a visual impact. It was noted the site is highly elevated to the left-hand side of the site, this is opposite ‘The Springs’ and close to the housing development.

·  It was the view that there were no new proposals for public transport. It was noted that the majority of people who visited ‘The Springs’ accessed it by car. However, in nice weather the journey could be made on foot. It was the view that the development would have significant impact on traffic movement.

·  The site is used by walkers, dog walkers and cyclists, the local community are passionate about the green land which forms a natural walkway between the areas.

·  The Garforth and Swillington Members would like to see the application refused and the piece of green land retained. However, they recognise the strong probability that the area was in the SAP for employment use and therefore the likelihood of it coming forward for some of development. However, they are of the view that every nuance must be explored fairly and diligently if development is to proceed – hence the representations being made. However, they would really like to see the greenspace retained for the community.

The applicant’s representative attended and provided the following information and answered questions from the Panel:

·  This site would join Thorpe Park and The Springs bringing a diversification of jobs base with much needed employment and business opportunities to the region.

·  Discussions had been taking place with the council for some time, and consultation had taken place with Ward Members and residents. Three public sessions had been held at The Springs.

·  The visual intrusion of the buildings would be lowered through design and character of the buildings and landscaping.

·  It was noted that the taller buildings could not be sited at the lowest elevation of the site due to access issues. The development was somewhat constrained by the topography of the site. Further discussions were to be had about the detail of design and would be brought back for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage.

·  It was noted that the applicant would take on board suggestions from the Members to look at green roofs for the buildings and planters when they met with the design officers, but also had to be mindful of what type of buildings/design would be practicable for future business occupiers.

·  It was the proposal that it would mirror the development at Thorpe Park, and they would enhance the connectivity through the site for the community. It was also noted that the details of the boundary would be looked at in detail for more vegetation.

Officers responded to questions from Members providing the following information:

·  Although the application had been submitted in January 2023, officers were still working through a number of issues on this site. It was noted that the application for the development of the site had been advertised in accordance with legislative requirements, and that more conversations were required with Local Ward Members of Garforth and Swillington and Temple Newsam and Crossgates and Whinmoor.

·  Seven representations in objection to the proposals had been received which formed part of the submitted report. Officers had not received a petition.

·  This was only the outline application to address principles of access, more details would be considered at Reserved Matters which was the next stage.

·  The Legal Officer explained the Judicial Review Period which remains and its relevance following the Inspector’s decision following the SAP remittal.

·  The Area Planning Manager explained that the Reserved Matters stage was the critical stage to address design and landscaping. It was acknowledged that this site would be difficult due to the topography of the area. It was noted that officers would take on board the requests from Members to provide more details and Members could request conditions prior to planning permission and ask to see the scheme as it develops.

·  It was recognised that currently there was a lack of public transport to the site, with some detail being provided of provision secure in relation to nearby developments (for example, The Springs), but with the acknowledgement that Members requested that the public transport provision to the site be considered.

Members Comments included:

·  The location is not well served by public transport. 

·  All aspects of this application need to be brought back to Plans Panel. It was a concern that this application had been ongoing for 12 months already and there were still many further points of discussion outstanding.

·  The principle of development on the site could not even be still firmly established when the position following the SAP remittal may still be open to legal process / challenge. To delegate any decision-making to officers at this stage would almost pre-empt this.

·  As the application had been ongoing for 12months it was the view that this should have comprised of more detailed information to put before Members. Members would like to see more details when next presented to Panel.

·  It was noted that West Yorkshire Combined Authority at a recent meeting had raised concerns in relation to connectivity in this area. This development would simply increase private transport use in the area.

Members had been requested to consider the questions posed at paragraph 81 of the report. Members give the following responses:

·  Question 1. The application was to be brought back to Plans Panel with a full report prior to determination.

·  Question 2. There were concerns regarding the indicative layout of the buildings that required more information.

·  Question 3. There were concerns in relation to the design of the buildings and more information and details were requested.

·  Question 4. More information was requested in relation to the landscaping and screening, and it was the view that this was an important factor for an application in this location.

·  Question 5. More information was required in relation to public transport and connectivity to, and through the site.

RESOLVED – To note the content of the report.