Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of an outline application for residential development]

(report attached)

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

  The Head of Planning Services presented the report which set out the current position in respect of an outline application for a residential development on a 7.81 hectare site at Bruntcliffe Road, Morley which was located adjacent to the M62; was mainly an allocated Phase 2 greenfield site but included part of an adjoining, unallocated, area of land previously proposed as a buffer zone between the site and the employment land beyond it

  As there were outstanding issues in relation to the proposals, Panel was asked to consider the key issues of highways safety; noise intrusion and compliance with the development plan

  Highways

• Members were informed that the Highways Agency had a

holding direction on the site until 31^st August 2012 -  although this could be extended – to enable consideration of the impact of cumulative development on Junction 27 of the M62, with a mitigation scheme having been drawn up, with the proposed development for this site likely to be required to make a contribution towards the works

• the traffic assessment submitted with the planning application was based on the provision of 200 homes although this number had now been revised to 168 homes.  The proposed access to the allocated site would be from Bruntcliffe Road and pedestrian access would be improved through the provision of widened footways, a pelican crossing and two additional pedestrian refuges on Bruntcliffe Road
• that the position of that part of the allocated housing site which was not coming forward at this stage (the Masonic Lodge land) would also need to be considered at this stage to ensure an acceptable access could be provided to the whole site

Noise intrusion

• To mitigate against the impact of noise from the adjacent M62, a revised layout had been provided which proposed less dwellings and the provision of a 40m strip of land adjacent to the motorway to act as a buffer.  Officers within the Council’s Environmental Protection Team were considering the revisions and the latest noise assessment submitted by the developer
• Members were informed that the developer considered that the issues relating to noise could be dealt with at Reserved Matters stage. However, the Head of Planning Services did not share this view and stressed to the Panel the importance of ensuring at this stage an acceptable living environment both within the houses and the gardens. This may well require additional noise mitigation measures e.g. a bund; planting and an acoustic fence

Compliance with the development plan

• Much of the site was a Phase 2 allocated greenfield site, and following the Executive Board decision after the Grimes Dyke appeal decision, acceptable in principle to release, part of the site included land which was unallocated in the UDP although this had been expected to form a buffer between the housing allocation and the adjacent employment land.  In the region of 40 dwellings were proposed on this unallocated land.  The test for development of unallocated sites was one of sustainability and given the close proximity of Morley Town Centre to the site and frequency of bus services past the site, it could be considered to be sustainable, although in terms of education provision, contributions would be required as part of a S106 Agreement
• In respect of the adjacent land allocated for employment use, as this was in the ownership of the applicant, the extent of the uses and activities could be controlled and the required buffer zone and extent of the open area would need to be controlled through the S106 agreement - further details on this were still required

The Panel was informed that Councillor Dawson’s objection as set out in

the submitted report was not complete and provided an update for Members’ information

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the lack of an overall framework, as recommended in the UDP policy

·  the width of the new proposed buffer zone between the proposed employment land and whether this was as wide as indicated in the UDP and whether this area would be landscaped

·  whether housing had been permanently deleted from the boundary to the motorway

·  the number of representations received in response to the proposals

·  the noise levels on site; the impact of this on the ability of the residents to enjoy their gardens and that only substantial mitigation measures could prevent noise nuisance

·  that the noise to the north of the site was also a concern and that ensuring ‘quiet’ employment uses, i.e. warehousing in this area was not acceptable and that the buffer needed to be enhanced rather than reduced

·  that the greenspace between the housing and employment land was being squeezed

·  that the site was hazardous at this point of Bruntcliffe Road, with particularly narrow footpaths and whether an Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out

·  whether in view of the access points indicated to serve the adjacent housing site, the transport assessment was based on the assumption that this site would be brought forward for development

·  the highways accident record for the area and the concerns being raised by residents and Ward Members

·  that there were infrastructure deficits in the area which included education provision

·  the number of additional traffic movements arising from the development

·  that references in the report to approved developments at Waterwood Close and Shayfield Lane could not be regarded as being directly comparable

The following responses were provided:

• that a development framework for the area had not been drawn up

• that the buffer between the employment allocation and the housing allocation was narrower and that there was significant encroachment into that area which the Inspector considered should be open and that it would be necessary to ensure the land between the employment land the and the buffer zone was clear
• that the buffer zone being proposed was less than that shown in the UDP
• that the extent of development would need to be determined at outline stage to address the issue of noise
• that Panel would be updated on the exact level of representations received on the application when it came to Panel for determination
• that whilst noise mitigation measures could move noise away from the site, this could be dependent upon the effect of the wind and the local topography and that proposed noise mitigation measures would need to be modelled and their effectiveness demonstrated
• that the proposals could not be determined until the Highways Agency was satisfied on the impact of this and other developments on Junction 27 of the M62
• that the transport assessment was initially based on 200 and that this had been revised to 175 although the impact of the adjacent site coming forward for development would need to be considered as an additional entrance into that site from Bruntcliffe Road would not be welcomed
• that in terms of traffic accidents, the road was not a length of concern, although it was accepted that the data collected related to reportable accidents rather than taking into account non-reported incidents or damage to property
• that education contributions were being sought in line with the SPG but that further discussions with colleagues in Children’s Services could take place in terms of education provision
• that using the well-established TRICS database, based on 200 units, the peak am hours would see 124 movements and the peak pm hours would see 138 movements

In addressing the specific questions in the report which the Panel was

asked to consider, the following points were made:

• That Members did have concerns about the principle of the development of that part of the site which fell outside of the UDP housing allocation but that subject to a reasonable land swap retaining the size of the buffer, this might be more acceptable.  That Members’ comments on the buffer zones be noted as was the view that the buffer zone adjacent to the employment land was much smaller than proposed in the UDP and that this should be as a minimum the width envisaged by the Inspector and for there to be no development on this part of the site.  In terms of planting on the industrial land at the south-west corner of the site, substantial planting could be considered together with additional planting between the site boundary and the M62, together with a bund and possibly an acoustic fence.  In respect of this part of the site, the view was expressed that attempts to put additional housing in this area would be resisted
• That the character of the housing as shown in the indicative layout appeared to be acceptable but that neither the layout or number of houses formed part of the outline application
• Members were satisfied that the location of the proposed access was the most appropriate in the circumstances
• In terms of highway safety, numerous concerns remained
• That the indicative sum – approximately £133,000 – for public transport measures in the S106 Agreement would be discussed with Ward Members
• That Members were not satisfied that the proposed heads of terms of the S106 Agreement addressed all relevant matters and that the issue of land swaps and the necessary legal agreements around these together with public access to the buffer zone would need to be explored further

Having heard the discussions, the Chief Planning Officer suggested that

all parties/landowners be contacted with a view to discussing the proposals to bring forward a development framework covering both the housing and employment allocations and buffer between them as envisaged in the UDP

  RESOLVED -  To note the report, the comments made and the Panel’s responses to the questions raised in the report

  During consideration of this matter, Councillor Truswell withdrew from the meeting