Agenda item

Application 10/04068/OT - residential development proposals for Clariant site, Calverley Lane, Horsforth LS18 AND Application 10/04261/OT residential development proposals for Riverside Mills, Horsforth

Further to minute 94 of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 6th January 2011 where Members considered a progress report on the application, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for redevelopment for up to 400 dwellings with ancillary shop, retention of sports ground with sports pavilion/community centre, allotments, open space and off-site highway works

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

Further to minutes 94 and 95 of the meeting held on 6th January 2011 when Panel considered progress reports on both schemes; the Chief Planning Officer submitted reports for determination of outline applications (including access) for residential developments at the Clariant site and the Riverside Mills site, Horsforth.

 

Members had previously received a presentation at pre-application stage and undertaken site visits. Site plans, photographs, indicative plans and highways plans were displayed at the meeting. The Panel agreed to consider both applications together given the substantive joint issues.

 

The Clariant scheme would provide up to of 400 dwellings, a shop, open space, allotments, retention of a sports & recreation ground in community use and off-site highways works. The Riverside Mills scheme would provide up to 150 dwellings, open space and off-site highway works.

 

Both developers had offered Section 106 and Section 278 Agreements to cover off-site highways improvements including Horsforth And Rodley roundabouts, new bus service to Horsforth, 25% Affordable Housing, footpath and cyclepath link improvements, free metrocards for residents and contributions to primary education.

 

Officers reported the following necessary amendments to the Riverside Mills report:

-  Conditions 30 to 32 be removed from the proposed conditions

-  Reference to BREAM be removed from condition 35 to be attached to the permission if granted

-  Developer now offered to fund two bus stops.

 

Officers also provided the following updates on the latest consultation responses/representations:

  • revised Travel Plan submitted 2 March 2011 (both applications) but there had been insufficient time to assess it prior to the meeting. This could be dealt with under a defer and delegate decision
  • Environment Agency confirmed no objection (Riverside Mills application) subject to standard conditions
  • Natural England commented the proposed mitigation measures were acceptable (both applications)
  • more information on the proposed 2m widening of Calverley Lane North footpath had been requested, but could be dealt with under a  defer and delegate decision
  • Nature Conservation Officer – commented that Calverley North had acceptable ecological improvements and had provided proposed conditions accordingly
  • receipt of 10 further letters of objection which raised no new issues and 1 letter of support (from Turner & Townsend) re Clariant
  • receipt of 2 further letters of objection which raised no new issues and 1 letter of support (from Turner & Townsend) re Riverside Mills
  • additional comments of Councillor Marjoram seeking provision of a school on protected playing pitch area.

 

A concept master plan for both schemes had been submitted to ensure the schemes integrated with each other and the wider locality. Heights were shown as being 2 to 2½ storeys at the site boundaries, with up to 3 storeys to the centre. Densities were indicated as being 25-35 dwellings per hectare at the periphery of the sites and 36-45 dwellings per hectare to the centre.

 

Principle of Residential Use

  • Officers highlighted the key considerations as being the fact that these are brownfield sites (although outside the main urban area); whether the sites were demonstrably sustainable and whether the package of sustainability measures was sufficient; balanced with the benefits brought by the schemes contribution to the five year housing land supply
  • Officers outlined the Sustainability package in relation to the following issues: brownfield, new housing, public transport, education, amenities, heritage retention, landscape, ecology and flooding
  • An assessment of employment provision concluded that there was a surplus of employment land in the development plan period. If these sites were retained for employment there would be other difficult issues.

 

Officers concluded that on balance these factors supported the principle of residential use and that the sustainability package was acceptable.

 

Highways

  • The Highways Officer provided details of the proposed highways works. Slides showing the proposed works to Calverley Lane North & South, the A6120; the A65, Horsforth Roundabout and Rodley Roundabout were displayed for reference
  • Means of access works included widening of the carriageway to the access point of Riverside Mills to provide 2 way access and footpath
  • Off-site highway works for both schemes comprised improved pedestrian facilities along the A6120 and A65 and extensive treatment to both Horsforth and Rodley roundabouts to increase capacity
  • A slide showing LCC proposals to signalise Horsforth roundabout was displayed. It was reported that the developers were willing to offer to fund this scheme but the additional costs incurred would negate their ability to provide affordable housing
  • Plans were displayed showing an indicative bus route from the Clariant site via Calverley Lane North to Horsforth schools and Train station and also details of the improved pedestrian footpaths and sites for pedestrian crossings. It was reported that the proposed half hourly bus service would not meet the SPD but would be funded; and was regarded as viable by METRO but required further negotiations with a bus operator
  • The Highways Officer provided the previously requested detail on the number, nature and location of reported accidents during the 2001-06 and 2006-10 time frame. Officers stated that not all the reported accidents at the Calverley Lane South junction related to the right turn into the Clariant site and some could have resulted from shunts in traffic stacking for the roundabouts
  • The proposed third lane would provide a length of road for stacking traffic waiting to make the right turn into Calverley Lane South; and would not stretch as far back as the railway bridge
  • Planning officers noted that the plans for Calverley Lane North did not provide adequate provision for cyclists and that this could not be provided without unacceptable loss of vegetation
  • Planning Officers confirmed that the applications before Panel today included the non-signalised works to Horsforth and Rodley roundabouts. If Panel wished to pursue an approval with the full signalised works to Horsforth roundabout the developer considered that affordable housing would not be viable.

 

Education

  • The applicant offered a full primary education contribution as requested by Education Leeds, but no secondary contribution was required
  • Ward Councillors had requested further investigation of the possibility of providing a school on site. Officers reported that the schemes would not result in the need for a new school to be built, however the developers had identified an area of playing field within the site that could be dedicated for  a new school if other contributions reduced
  • Planning officers confirmed that this was Green Belt land and therefore would result in policy issues. Education Leeds also confirmed no funding was available to build a school. Officers acknowledged that these applications could not solve existing issues relating to availability of school places in the area.

 

Speakers

The Panel then heard representation from objectors to the scheme:

Mr Martin Hughes of Horsforth Civic Society addressed the Panel on concerns relating to the impact of these isolated developments on the  community infrastructure. He referred to the findings of a 2005 survey of the A65 and stated matters were unlikely to have changed. He noted that issues relating to education, highways and public transport were raised by both the community and the Panel and predicted 1000 cars could be generated by 550 homes.

Mrs Kate Arbuckle a local resident, Horsforth Town Clerk and Chair of Horsforth Town Council Planning Committee expressed concern over the traffic management plan, the current traffic problems in the area and the comments of an Inspector on a previous appeal on the nature of the routes and proposed distances to amenities. She suggested that residents were more likely to use private vehicles than walk or cycle.

Councillor A Carter Calverley and Farsley ward Member urged the Panel to consider the sites in the context of the highways network and education and whether they would be demonstrably sustainable. He noted that future residents would live within either the Horsforth or Calverley & Farsley wards and all residents of the Clariant site would live within the Horsforth ward. The subsequent increased demand for school places would have a far reaching impact on all local schools, some of which were already at capacity. Councillor Carter stated the proposed works to Rodley roundabout were insufficient and this roundabout should be signalised. Further residential developments along the A65 should not be allowed until both roundabouts were improved.

 

(Councillor Leadley withdrew from the meeting at this point)

 

Having regard to objector’s comments Panel discussed the concerns expressed regarding impact of the school run on the highways network and the proposed pedestrian route to Newlaithes School which was currently impassable due to flooding. Members also noted the comment made by Councillor Carter that  none of the residents who had attended the public consultation were opposed to the principle of residential development but that residents did not believe the two schemes could be sustainable.

 

(Councillor Leadley rejoined the meeting)

 

The Panel then heard representation from supporters of the scheme:

Mrs S Ansbro on behalf of both developers who stated the sites could not be left undeveloped and the only alternative would be to seek to reintroduce permitted low grade industrial use if the proposals were not approved. The developers believed that sustainable measures on the sites could be delivered and be compliant with Policy H4. The submitted traffic analysis had taken into account the Woodside Quarry and Kirkstall Forge developments which also access onto the A65. Mrs Ansbro confirmed the developers commitment to highways works totalling £2m and acknowledged the debate regarding education provision but commented that the local schools Admissions Policy was a  separate issue.

Mrs A Reeves of the Riverside Mills team then addressed the Panel on the planning history of the site and emphasised that there were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees.

Mr M Lunn of Turner & Townsend then addressed the Panel in support of the scheme and the benefits of regeneration in the area.

 

The Panel discussed the following matters with the developers representatives:

  • Could not see how the sites could be sustainable
  • Choice of provision of Affordable Housing or highways works
  • The residential usage could generate a large carbon footprint however vehicles would be on site through industrial usage
  • The highways scheme could mitigate the impact of these developments but would not address existing problems on the local highways network. Some Members saw signalisation of Horsforth roundabout as imperative as the A65 was at capacity noting the developers were prepared to address this but at a cost to the overall scheme
  • Traffic generated by the proposed residential scheme would be different to the previous industrial use as the peak time flows would be different, but the developers suggested the overall vehicular movements would not differ greatly
  • Extending the bus link to Pudsey would benefit the residents
  • Problems of education as all local schools were full or nearly full, but  acknowledged the applicant could not influence Council’s admission policy
  • The intended low grade industrial use fall back position
  • Noted that Network Rail would not support a halt at this location due to its proximity to the proposed Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge sites
  • Whether a smaller scheme had been considered bearing in mind the physical constraints on the sites and the issue of viability
  • The level of public consultation with local residents and ward Councillors.

 

The Panel noted that the developer had worked with Education Leeds who had calculated that a contribution to primary provision was required, not a new school. Furthermore, there was currently spare capacity within some local secondary schools which was why no secondary education contributions were required.

 

(Councillor Akhtar withdrew from the meeting)

 

The Panel then went onto discuss education provision in detail with Mr Peter Storrie of Education Leeds as follows:

  • Projected numbers of pupils and capacity of the schools nearest to the developments
  • Education Leeds was aware of the concerns raised by Panel that local schools were already full to capacity and would look to spend the contribution in Horsforth and Calverley in the first instance
  • It was reported that there were 9300 primary school places in 2010/11, but last years birth-rate stood at 10,200. Members were concerned that there would be a 900 space shortfall in Leeds in 3 to 4 years time, just as residents moved into the proposed developments. Members sought reassurance that Education Leeds could quickly provide solutions and local schools could absorb children from the developments
  • Creative use of school buildings could accommodate increased numbers, such as “through schools” providing education from 3yrs  to 18yrs, but adding on to existing buildings would be dependant on capital and space available
  • These developments would only provide for a half form entry and LCC could not currently fund the remainder, plus there were issues regarding delivery of a full curriculum

 

(Councillor Akhtar rejoined the meeting)

 

Officers reported the likely difficulties of marketing the sites for employment use, due to the significant distances from the motorway network, and that any new industrial development would also result in increased traffic and would be likely to be piecemeal.

 

Members received further details from the highways officer regarding the difference between the previous industrial use in terms of nature of trips, vehicles and peak times, and the proposed residential use. The Highways Officer stated further negotiation was required over the provision of a 2.5m wide cycle lane along Calverley Lane North which would provide for 2 way cycle use and prevent the need for cyclists to access and egress the site at the same access point as motorists. The Panel expressed concern that cyclists would have to make the same right hand turn at Calverley Lane South as motorists. Panel queried  traffic levels on A65 compared to the site in full operation and whether accident statistics were under-estimated.

 

The Panel took a short comfort break at this point. Members reconvened and discussed the following:

  • This would not really be a sustainable site and would be highly car dependant
  • Whether the report conclusions were reasonable given that local schools and highways networks were at capacity already
  • The sites would not be attractive to people eligible for Affordable Housing as there was no infrastructure – such as shops, doctors and the site was not easily accessible. Members also considered the practicalities of living on the sites
  • Whether the developers had demonstrated that the predicted amount of traffic could be safely accommodated on the highways network
  • The public transport offer was regarded as inadequate; cyclists would not be able to use Calverley Lane North; and something more radical was required
  • Some Members felt the signalisation of Horsforth roundabout was essential but found it difficult to reconcile it with the loss of Affordable Housing
  • One Member felt that the development of a brownfield site should be supported to reduce pressure on greenfield and green belt sites and noted the previous use as a chemical site would have resulted in significant traffic generation
  • Suggested the schemes would provide a planned village but queried whether this was the right location bearing in mind Members’ ongoing concerns
  • Welcomed the retention of the mill buildings but would require a management plan for both the Mill Pond and the Beck and more information on the proposed future maintenance of the pavilion and pitches
  • Questioned the usefulness of the proposed bus, the estate would be highly car dependant and crucially would feed directly onto the Ring Road rather than a gentle dispersal through a network of street.

 

The Chair directed the Panel to consider the applicant’s alternative offer to signalise Horsforth roundabout, which would result in the loss of Affordable Housing provision; and following a vote in which the Chair made a casting vote, the Panel agreed that if the applications were to progress toward an approval, then Panel would seek the signalisation of Horsforth roundabout instead of Affordable Housing.

 

The Chair then requested the Panel consider each application in turn with regards to the recommendation:

RESOLVED –

(1)  Application 10/04068/OT Clariant Site

(a) That the officer recommendation to defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions not be agreed,

(b) That Officers are requested to present a report to the next meeting setting out proposed reasons for refusal of the application based on the Panel’s strongly held concerns regarding the following:

  • sustainability of the site in terms of remoteness, access, proximity to services,
  • impact of traffic generated by the site on highway safety at Calverley Lane South

 

(2)   Application 10/04261/OT Riverside Mills

  a) That the officer recommendation to defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions not  be agreed,

b) That Officers are requested to present a report to the next Panel meeting setting out proposed reasons for refusal of the application based on Panels’ strongly held concerns regarding the following:

-  sustainability of the site in terms of remoteness, access, proximity to services,

-  impact of traffic generated by the site on highway safety at Calverley Lane South

 

(Councillor Wood left the meeting)

 

Supporting documents: