Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an outline planning application for circa 874 dwellings; a 66 bed Care Home, a one form entry Primary School, a new Local Centre including a Class A1 Convenience Store (up to 420M2), a 5 Unit Parade of small Retail Units (up to 400M2), Class D1 uses (up to 750M2) to land at Thorp Arch Estate, Wetherby.

(Report attached)

                 The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline planning application for circa 874 dwellings; a 66 bed Care Home, a one form entry Primary School, a new Local Centre including a Class A1 Convenience Store (up to 420M2), a 5 Unit Parade of small Retails Units (up to 400M2), Class D1 uses (up to 750M2) to land at Thorp Arch Estate, Wetherby.

The Chief Planning Officer reported that the application was now the subject of an appeal against none determination, a parallel application had also been submitted.

Addressing the report the Chief Planning officer said that in order to contest the appeal the following reasons recommending refusal of the application were being put forward for Members consideration:

1.  The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that the local highway infrastructure, including the wider network and specifically Thorp Arch bridge and the junction of Bridge Road / High Street in Boston Spa, which will be affected by additional traffic as a result of this development, is capable of safely accommodating the proposed development and absorbing the additional pressures placed on it by the increase in traffic which will be brought about by the proposed development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF which combined requires development not to create or materially add to problems of safety, environment or efficiency on the highway network.

2.  The Local Planning Authority considers that there is insufficient information submitted with the application to demonstrate that an acceptable level of accessibility can be achieved for the scale of development proposed. In the absence of such information and measures, as may be secured, there is a danger that future residents will be overly reliant on the private car. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policies SP1, T2 and H2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and policies T2 and GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and guidance in the NPPF.

3.  In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement the proposed development fails to provide necessary contributions and/or obligations for the provision and delivery of affordable housing, housing for independent living, greenspace, travel planning, public transport enhancements, local facilities and off site highway works, without which would result in an unsustainable form of development that

fails to meet the identified needs of the city and prospective residents, contrary to the requirements of Policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to Policies H5, H8, P9, T2, G4 and ID2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF.

Further issues highlighted included the following:

The receipt of a further submission from TAG (Thorp Arch Trading Estate Action Group) was reported. The Group were supportive of the recommendation for refusal, but raised additional concerns about the land containing mixed contaminants, including industrial waste and vulnerable materials (Site of a former Royal Ordnance Filling Factory) leading to a level of uncertainty and risk.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Significant number of objections

·  Principle of the development

·  Layout and form of development

·  Impact on the local highway network

·  Impact on Thorp Arch Bridge

·  Former Royal Ordinance factory site, remedial works required

·  The appropriateness of the approach to dealing with contaminated land

·  Ecology

·  School provision in the area

·  Guidance around Care Home provision in isolated areas

·  Well founded reasons for refusal

·  Support the officer recommendation of refusal

Responding to the issue of school provision in the area the Chief Planning Officer said that High Schools were located at Boston Spa and Wetherby, on the issue of Care Home provision, it was reported there was no policy on where a Care Home should be located.

RESOLVED – Had Members been in a position to determine the application it would have been refused for the following reasons:

1  The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that the local highway infrastructure, including the wider network and specifically Thorp Arch bridge and the junction of Bridge Road / High Street in Boston Spa, which will be affected by additional traffic as a result of this development, is capable of safely accommodating the proposed development and absorbing the additional pressures placed on it by the increase in traffic which will be brought about by the proposed development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF which combined requires development not to create or materially add to problems of safety, environment or efficiency on the highway network.

2  The Local Planning Authority considers that there is insufficient information submitted with the application to demonstrate that an acceptable level of accessibility can be achieved for the scale of development proposed. In the absence of such information and measures, as may be secured, there is a danger that future residents will be overly reliant on the private car. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policies SP1, T2 and H2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and policies T2 and GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and guidance in the NPPF.

3  In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement the proposed development fails to provide necessary contributions and/or obligations for the provision and delivery of affordable housing, housing for independent living, greenspace, travel planning, public transport enhancements, local facilities and off site highway works, without which would result in an unsustainable form of development that

fails to meet the identified needs of the city and prospective residents, contrary to the requirements of Policy GP5 of the adopted UDP Review and related Supplementary Planning Documents and contrary to Policies H5, H8, P9, T2, G4 and ID2 of the Leeds Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF.