Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding applications for the demolition of outbuildings, laying out of access roads and erection of 92 houses with landscaping.

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

Officers presented the report which related to applications for the demolition of outbuildings, laying out of access road and the erection of 92 houses with landscaping at Daisy Hill, Morley

Members were informed that application 11/04988/FU had been considered by Plans Panel East, with the formal application being presented to that Panel on 6^th September 2012. At that meeting, Members had not accepted the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application and had requested a further report setting out possible reasons for refusal of the application based on the concerns raised about sustainability, with particular reference to polices set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(minute 54 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 6^th September 2012 refers).  Due to the changes in the boundaries of the Plans Panels, it was now for South and West Panel to consider the matter.  A copy of the report submitted to Plans Panel East on 6^th September 2012 was appended to the report, for information

Since that meeting, there had been further developments, which Members needed to consider; these being the lodging of an appeal against non-determination in respect to of application 11/04988/FU and the submission of a new application for the site which was for the same form of development as considered by Plans Panel East

As Members could not now determine the 2011 application, South and West Panel was being asked to consider whether to contest the appeal on the 2011 application and whether it was content to defer and delegate approval of the latest application to Officers, subject to no new issues being raised prior to the expiry of the period of public consultation on that application

In respect of the decision taken by Plans Panel East on 6^th September, the Panel was informed that Officers had looked closely at the issues raised by Members at that meeting but had concluded that it would be extremely difficult to sustain reasons for refusal and for this reason, the report did not contain possible grounds for refusal of the 2011 application

The Lead Officer of the former Plans Panel East outlined the application and informed Members that the site was allocated in the UDP as a Phase 2 greenfield site; with two Inspectors having concluded that the site was sustainable

The proposals were for 92 houses for varying sizes in semi and detached form arranged around a crescent.  Public open space (POS) was provided on site and 15% affordable housing was to be provided, this being “pepperpotted” around the site

The spatial setting of the properties was considered to be acceptable and although Plans Panel East Members had raised concerns about the sloping nature of the gardens, this had been considered further with Officers being satisfied that the gardens could be fully used as the slope was a gentle one.  The issue of the steep drop from part of the site to Morley railway station below had been addressed by the provision of a 2m high close-boarded fence

In respect of drainage issues, storage tanks would be sited in the POS to channel the water away at greenfield run off rates, so the development should not make the existing situation any worse

In terms of visual appearance, the design of the properties picked up some of the characteristics of properties in the area

Further representation from Morley Town Council and Councillor Leadley were reported with Councillor Leadley’s comments being read out to the Panel

In terms of S106 contributions, all these had been met; Officers were now satisfied that the layout of the properties met with guidance contained within ‘Neighbourhood for Living’ and that there were no technical objections to the application although it was accepted that there was a significant number of objections from local residents to the proposals.  If minded to approve the 2012 application, Members were informed that the applicant had stated they would withdraw the appeal and make an early start on site

The Panel heard representations from an objector and the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting

Members discussed the following matters:

• drainage and flooding
• the lack of places in local primary and secondary schools
• public transport provision, with concerns at the distance from the site of the main bus route and the infrequency and unreliability of the buses serving this area and capacity issues on the trains which served Morley
• the principle of developing greenfield sites ahead of brownfield sites and that this did not accord with guidance in the NPPF
• the concerns of Officers about the ability to sustain grounds for refusal at appeal and the recent successful appeal outcomes where development had been resisted, often against Officer advice
• the difficult economic situation and that the application provided an opportunity to build homes and create employment
• the way forward, in the event the Panel did not accept the Officer’s recommendation contained within the report in view of no grounds for Plans Panel East’s refusal of the application being provided

The Head of Planning Services stated that where an Officer’s

recommendation to approve an application was overturned, it was incumbent upon Officers to submit a further report setting out reasons for refusal for Panel’s determination. In this case, officers were of the opinion that they were unable to provide reasons that would be sustainable at appeal. Members were informed that the presumption of the NPPF was in favour of sustainable development and of the 11 cases on greenfield sites which had gone to appeal, all had been lost as it was the view of the Inspector that the city did not have a 5 year land supply. Whilst the final decision on the applications rested with Members, it was the duty of Officers to provide proper advice

A proposal to accept the Officer’s recommendation was made and seconded

RESOLVED -  To note the report and to not contest the planning appeal against the non-determination of planning application 11/04988/FU and to defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer of application 12/04048/FU as recommended in the attached report (6^th September 2012 – Appendix 1) and following completion of a S106 Agreement and no new issues being raised prior to the expiration of the public consultation period

Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Wadsworth and Councillor Wood required it to be recorded that they abstained from voting on the matter