Agenda item

Application No. 17/08262/OT - Outline application for a residential development with all matters reserved save for the two principle accesses off Westerton Road and Haigh Moor Road, (but not to include access within the site), three points of access at Upper Green Avenue, Sandringham Drive and Hill Top Lane, associated works, public open space provision and accessibility and qualitative improvements to local greenspace to land off Haigh Moor Road and Westerton Road, West Ardsley, Leeds WF3.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an outline application for a residential development with all matters reserved save for the two principle accesses off Westerton Road and Haigh Moor Road, (but not to include access within the site), three points of access at Upper Green Avenue, Sandringham Drive and Hill Top Lane, associated works, public open space provision and accessibility and qualitative improvements to local greenspace to land off Haigh Moor Road and Westerton Road, West Ardsley, Leeds WF3.

 

 

(Report attached)

Minutes:

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an outline application for a residential development with all matters reserved save for the two principle accesses off Westerton Road and Haigh Moor Road, (but not to include access within the site), three points of access at Upper Green Avenue, Sandringham Drive and Hill Top Lane, associated works, public open space provision and accessibility and qualitative improvements to local greenspace to land off Haigh Moor Road and Westerton Road, West Ardsley, Leeds WF3.

 

Members visited the site prior to the meeting.  Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

Planning Officers addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 

·  Site/ location/context

·  The proposal is to develop 299 dwellings within two sites that are allocated under the Council’s recently-adopted SAP, with associated works

·  Creation of public open spaces, a nature reserve and wider accessibility and qualitative improvements.

·  The developable parts of the two SAP sites are separated into four plots.

·  The collective development of the four plots will facilitate the creation of various public open spaces and the enhancement and improvement to Haigh Wood and surrounding public rights of way.

·  Accesses into the four parcels of housing land including two principle accesses from Westerton Road and Haigh Moor Road; and three points of access from Upper Green Avenue, Sandringham Drive and Hill Top Lane.

·  House types to range in size, type and tenure.

·  15% Affordable housing is proposed.

·  The areas surrounding the site comprise of residential properties, interspersed by local facilities, including small shops, schools, public houses and other local community facilities.

·  The areas of residential properties are interspersed with public open spaces and wider agricultural fields that are defined as Green Belt land.

·  To the east of Haigh Moor Road there is Ardsley Reservoir, whilst to the west – within the middle of this site – there is Baghill Beck and Haigh Woods.

·  Various public footpaths cross the application site and link the residential streets with the wider public green spaces.

·  There are some historic Grade II Listed buildings within the wider area, however, none are sited within the proposed development site.

·  The site is policy compliant and in accordance with the Site Allocation Plan (SAP)

·  The site is considered to be sustainable and meets National/ Local Plan requirements

The Planning Case Officer reported the receipt of further representations following publication of the application on the 22nd January 2020.

 

·  Recent housing developments had increased traffic in the area and this would make things considerably worse;

·  The road infrastructure is at capacity and junction 28 of the M62 and

·  sections of the A653 and the A650 are particularly bad;

·  Insufficient doctors and schools for additional families

The applicant has a responsibility to improve ecological networks such as Haigh Woods and achieve biodiversity net gains;

·  The development is unsustainable;

·  The development will adversely affect Haigh Woods;

·  The area has had its fair share of housing

 

Officers reported that the above comments do not raise any new issues and had been responded to in the original report. However, it should be clarified that Haigh Woods itself is not proposed to be developed and the proposal seeks to enhance the woodlands both in terms of the biodiversity and accessibility for all local residents.

 

The Panel heard from Councillor L Mulherin who was objecting to the proposal

 

Councillor Mulherin said that the local road network would not be able to cope with additional traffic, picking up and drop off at the local Primary School was already difficult. Access to local amenities from this site was poor, the were no proposals for a new school in the area, and there would be an adverse impact on the historic woodland

 

Questions to Councillor Mulherin:

·  As Executive Member responsible, you had the responsibility for bringing forward the SAP, the submitted report indicates that this site is policy complainant but you’re suggesting it’s not.

·  Do you consider this particular development to be unsustainable

·  You appear to be supportive of the SAP but not when the application is in your own back yard

·  Are there any shops within walking distance of the 4 site

 

 

In responding Councillor Mulherin said

 

·  The Site Allocation Process was a lengthy process and was ongoing before I became Executive Member responsible. I have consistently opposed the proposal as a local ward member. I welcome a policy where the City Council has a 5 year land supply. I am not opposed to the SAP, my objections are just to this particular proposal

·  The existing road network would not be able to cope with increased traffic movements, there is poor public transport in the area, a trip to the local GP surgery by bus could take up to 2 hours

·  Other sites within the SAP have similar issues

·  There are no shops in West Ardsley, the nearest shops/ amenities are in Tingley

 

The Panel heard from Councillor W Kidger who was also objecting to the proposal

 

Councillor Kidger said she was not opposed to the development of houses but this site was not the right location. This application has attracted a lot of objections and there is a strong feeling in the local community that to include this site within the SAP was wrong. The local community want to save the Greenspace

 

Questions to Councillor Kidger

 

·  Is it your view that the inspector and SAP process was wrong

·  Do you consider the highway network to be unsafe in this area

 

In responding Councillor Kidger said

 

·  Yes the SAP allocation was wrong

·  There was already significant congestion on the highway network, which was unsafe, and the development of houses in this area would add to the congestion

 

The Panel heard from Councillor J Elliott who was also objecting to the proposal

 

Councillor Elliott said accessibility in this area was poor, there was not a reliable bus service, the highway network would not be able to cope, there was already considerable problems at Junction 28.This site did not meet the access requirements for the SAP

 

Questions to Councillor Elliott

 

·  You consider this site to be unsustainable on the grounds of accessibility

 

In responding Councillor Elliott said:

 

·  The bus service in this area was poor, there were no nearby train stations and the local highway network was congested – Yes, the site was unsustainable

 

The Panel heard from Mrs A Parnham who was also objecting to the proposal on behalf of West Ardsley Action Group.

 

Mrs Parnham said she was opposed to the application on sustainability grounds; schools in the area were already full so where would children from any new development go to school.  The highways are congested and the proposals would adversely affect the biodiversity of the woods. The inclusion of this site within the SAP was wrong and would be inappropriate development for the settlement of West Ardsley. There are many errors in the SAP process and this site does not meet the targets.

 

Questions to Mrs Parnham:

 

·  Are there parking problems in the area

·  If infrastructure matters were resolved would the proposed development be acceptable

 

In responding Mrs A Parnham said:

 

·  Yes there are parking problems on local streets in the evenings and at weekends

·  The community objections were not a result of ‘nimbyism’

 

 

The Panel heard from Mr G Whitford, Applicants representative who was speaking in support of the of the application

 

Mr Whitford said the adoption of the SAP was completed after a lengthy consultation process and detailed consideration of the objections raised. The City Council now had a 5 year land supply policy. The development of this site is compliant with legislation. As part of the proposal Haigh Wood would be protected and secured by obligation within the Section 106 Agreement. All the objections made are relevant but these have been considered and addressed in the SAP process. This site conforms with the accessibility standards with the SAP. A significant contribution would be provided for improvements to the local highway network. Affordable housing provision would comply with adopted policy and £2 million of CIL contribution can be put towards local school provision and other infrastructure improvements. Members were informed that this application was not in conflict with NPPF. 

 

Questions to Mr Whitford

 

·  The contribution to M62 Junction 28 was sizable but the other highway contributions appeared to be modest

·  What consultation had taken place with the local community

·  The Inspector said the site is sustainable but local ward Members are not of the same view

·  How will the site ecology be enhanced

·  Do some parts of the site fail to meet the Council’s accessibility standards

·  How many buses serve the site per hour

·  What proportion of West Ardsley does the site represent

 

In responding Mr Whitford said

 

·  The figure to be provided was based on the impact of the development on the local highway network. LCC Highway Officers clarified that the contribution would go towards mitigating cumulative impact of all developments within the area on the local road network. The site does not meet accessibility standards.

·  It was reported that no consultation had taken place with regard this specific application, but consultation/ objections had been considered as part of the SAP

·  The views of Local Ward Members can be taken into account but this has been designated as a sustainable site by the SAP

·  The local ecology will be enhanced by planned management of the woods and site

·  The site does not meet all elements of the accessibility standards

·  There was a frequency of 1 bus per hour to different destinations but accessibility and sustainability considerations need to be looked at in the round and balanced against the benefits of the development

·  He did not have information on the proportion of the site area or proposed housing numbers in relation to West Ardsley as a whole.

 

 

Questions to Officers:

 

·  This site appears already to be poorly served, local highway network, transport and amenities – Development of this site would make the situation worse. Members were of the view that contributions were not sufficient in amount and were concerned that the highways improvements could not be paid for until such time as more development had taken place on other sites.

·  The Climate Emergency was not declared until recently and a lot of vehicle movements may be generated by this development

·  All local schools are full, where would children from the development go to school

·  Are officers still of the view that this site is policy compliant and accords with the Development Plan

·  What proportion of the area of West Ardsley does the site represent

·  What level of affordable is required in the area

·  Will the Council’s residential space standards and housing mix targets be met

·  Does the assessment of cumulative impact on highway network take account of the planned development within the neighbouring Kirklees Authority area

 

In responding to the issues raised, Planning Officers/ the applicant’s representatives said:

 

·  The Chief Planning Officer said the SAP had been adopted after an extensive site selection process which focus on settlement development across Leeds. There would be an infrastructure delivery plan to recognise and align to planned housing growth in respect of highway improvements and school growth but it is recognised that some sites are in areas of existing deficiency

·  Sustainability considered through a Local Plan Review

·  There was no requirement within the SAP to provide land for school development on these two SAP sites, instead other sites within the locality have been identified for school provision and the CIL contribution from the development can be put towards local school provision

·  The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that overall the scheme is supported by and complies with the Development Plan

·  Officers did not have information on the proportion of the site area or the proposed housing numbers in relation to West Ardsley as a whole

·  The requirement for affordable housing provision in this area is 15% of the total units proposed

·  This is an outline application and the details of residential unit sizes and housing mix will be addressed at reserved matters stage in accordance with the Council’s adopted polices

·  The Transport Assessment has taken into account the impact of the planned development on the neighbouring site within the Kirklees Authority

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  More information is required about the nature and timing of local highway infrastructure improvements

·  Further information about school provision in the area is required

·  Access to shops and healthcare provision is a concern

·  The type and size of house proposed for this site requires more consideration

·  Possible impact on a local beauty spot

·  This site does not meet detailed accessibility, infrastructure and sustainability requirements

·  It is recognised that these are allocated housing sites but 299 houses is considered excessive for these sites

·  More consultation is needed with local residents to address their concerns

 

The Chair thanked Local Ward Members, residents and the developers for their attendance and contributions. He said this application had been discussed thoroughly but there still remained issues of concern.

 

Panel discussed the way forward and were minded to refuse the planning proposal. It was considered that the reasons for refusal needed to be specific to the proposals for this site.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow the Chief Planning Officer to prepare and bring back to Panel detailed reasons for refusal based on the following:

 

·  The narrowness and nature of the access roads leading to the entrances to the sites

·  The lack of information on the mitigation that is required to address the impact on the local highway junctions

·  The failure of the site to meet the Core Strategy accessibility standards for housing development

Supporting documents: