Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposed reasons to refuse an outline application for a residential redevelopment with associated off site highways works at the former Clariant Works, Horsforth, comprising of up to 400 dwellings, access, public open space, parking, ancillary retail unit, allotments and retention of sports ground. The Panel previously considered this matter on 3^rd March 2011

(Report attached)

Further to minute 112 of the meeting held on 3^rd March 2011 when the Panel resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to approve the application; the Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out proposed reasons to refuse the application based on the concerns raised at that meeting. The proposals had been considered in conjunction with development proposals for the adjacent Riverside Mills site (minute 127 refers) and the same reasons to refuse both applications were dealt with at the same time.

Five reasons were contained within the report, and officers tabled a sixth reason at the meeting following further discussions on the Transport Assessment. Officers clarified that the reasons for refusal were based on the application as made – without the proposals for signalisation of Horsforth roundabout as they had not part of the formal application, although offered and discussed at the Panel meeting.

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

1. The site lies outside the main urban area, in a location which is remote from local services. As such, the site is not in a demonstrably sustainable location for residential development and the sustainability measures promoted are considered insufficient to outweigh this locational disadvantage. The proposal is therefore detrimental to the aims and objectives of sustainability policy, contrary to adopted Leeds UDP Review (2006) strategic goal SG4, strategic aim SA2, policies H4, T2, T9; RSS (2008) policies YH7, LCR1, T1 and government guidance in PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13.

2. The site is poorly served by non car modes of transport. The proposed bus service is insufficient to meet the minimum standards suggested by the SPD “Public Transport Contributions” and proposals for Calverley Lane North result in disbenefits for cyclists. Consequently residents would be primarily dependent upon use of the private car. The proposal is therefore detrimental to the aims and objectives of sustainability policy, contrary to adopted Leeds UDP Review (2006) strategic goal SG4, strategic aim SA2, policies GP5, H4, T2, T2D, T5, T9; RSS (2008) policies YH7, T1, T3; SPD “Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions” (August 2008) and government guidance in PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13.

3. The submitted Travel Plan is unacceptable as regards baseline mode splits and targets, penalties and mitigation if targets not met, travel to school by sustainable transport and the form, timing and length of monitoring. The proposal is therefore detrimental to the aims and objectives of sustainability policy, contrary to adopted Leeds UDP Review (2006) strategic aim SA2, policy GP5, para 6.3.9., 6.3.12, RSS policy T1, SPD “Travel Plans” (May 2007) and government guidance in PPG13.

4. The development is accessed from the A6110 (Ring Road) which is a high speed, heavily trafficked primary route. The access from Calverley Lane South onto the A6110 does not have adequate capacity to cater for the development and is considered unsafe. The proposal is therefore detrimental to highway safety, contrary to adopted Leeds UDP Review (2006) policies GP5, T2 and T5 of the and government guidance in PPS3 and PPG13.

5. The proposed access works to Calverley Lane North fail to take proper account of cyclists returning to the site, detrimental to their safety and convenience. The proposal is therefore detrimental to highway safety, contrary to adopted Leeds UDP Review (2006) policies GP5, T2, T5; RSS policy T1 and government guidance in PPG13.

6. The Transport Assessment is based on a VISSIM model which has a number of serious flaws; in particular the queue lengths in the existing situation do not validate which has implications for the fallback and development case results. This means that the model does not provide an acceptable representation of impacts on the local highway network and the Transport Assessment cannot be relied upon to make a sound planning decision. The application is therefore detrimental to highway interests contrary to adopted Leeds UDP (2006) policies GP%, T2, T2B and PPG13 paras 23 – 25