Agenda item

 

 

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a Hybrid Planning application including detailed application comprising the demolition of existing buildings and structures; earthworks to form development platforms, drainage features, embankments and bunds; strategic landscaping, alteration of existing access road, including works to existing Topcliffe Lane and junction with A653 and construction of new access road, to serve employment development. The outline application comprises the construction of employment floorspace (Use Classes B2 and

B8 with ancillary office) and associated servicing and infrastructure including car parking, vehicle, pedestrian and cycle circulation, landscaping and ecology works, noise mitigation, drainage features and all associated infrastructure.

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a hybrid planning application which comprised of the demolition of existing buildings and structures; earthworks to form development platforms, drainage features, embankments and bunds; strategic landscaping, alteration of existing access road, including works to existing Topcliffe Lane and junction with A653 and construction of new access road, to serve employment development.  The outline application comprises the construction of employment floorspace (Use Classes B2 and B8 with ancillary office) and associated servicing and infrastructure including car parking, vehicle, pedestrian and cycle circulation, landscaping and ecology works, noise mitigation, drainage features and all associated infrastructure at land at Capitol Park, Topcliffe Lane, Morley.

 

The application had previously been considered by City Plans Panel at the meeting held in November 2021 when it had been deferred for further information and details.  Members had visited the site prior to that meeting.

 

Site Plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

 

·  The site was allocated for employment land within the Site Allocation Plan.

·  There were no full details for the layout and siting of buildings at this stage of the application.  Full details included the proposed earthworks to form the platforms and bunds, drainage and landscaping.

·  The site was considered to be of strategic importance for the provision of logistics floorspace to meet both local and national demand and had good access to the motorway network.

·  Concern had been expressed with regard to the drainage works for the site as they fell within adjacent greenbelt land.  It was reported that these works would be policy compliant as they did not harm or conflict the openness of the greenbelt land.

·  Indicative plans were displayed showing different examples of siting the buildings.

·  There was some concern regarding the visual impact of buildings on residential properties at Topcliffe Lane.  These concerns had been considered during the development of alternative indicative options for the siting of buildings.

·  CGI images were displayed showing how the site would be screened by tree planting and how this would mitigate the visual impact of the development.

·  It was felt that the separation distances between the proposed buildings along with the landscaping would prevent any significant impact on living conditions for residents. 

·  There had been concerns regarding the proposed 24-hour operation of the site.  This kind of operation was essential for the site and it was felt that due to distances and access arrangements there would not be a significant impact on residents.  A condition with regard to hours of work during the construction phase could be imposed.

·  Mitigating measures could be used to prevent light pollution from the site.

·  There would be improvements to the existing footpath network including links to Morley town centre.  There would also be enhancements to the cycle network.

·  There had been an increase in proposed tree planting with 7,500 trees to be planted.  The landscaping would connect to existing residential areas and provide a 12.5% biodiversity gain and wildlife and ecology benefits.

·  There was a commitment for local employment opportunities at the pre-construction, construction and operational phases of the development and also financial contributions to the local Ahead Partnership and apprenticeship fund.

·  In terms of traffic management, the  main impact would be on the motorway network and Junction 28 of the M62.  A scheme of mitigation was proposed that would be delivered at a cost of £4 million.

·  The Panel was informed of additional comments that had been submitted by Ward Councillors and local residents.  These included concerns regarding the size of the development, impact on residents, impact on the highways, development in the greenbelt, the proposed 24 hour operation of the site and the lack of public consultation.

·  In conclusion it was reported that the proposals would deliver a  key employment scheme and was of strategic importance to Leeds and the Leeds City Region.  It was a sustainable form of development and it was felt that previous concerns had been addressed.  The application was recommended for approval.

 

The Panel heard from a Ward Councillor and local resident who were speaking in objection to the application.  Issues highlighted included the following:

 

 

·  Main concerns raised at the meeting in November included the proposed 24-hour operation, impact on the greenbelt and size of the development and these had not been adequately addressed.

·  The site was currently mainly office use and used between the hours of 09:00 and 17:00.  Other businesses on Capitol Park that operated longer hours were situated further away from residents.

·  The proposed sizes of the units had not changed and it was unlikely that residents would not suffer from noise and light pollution.

·  The applicant had not consulted sufficiently with residents to address their concerns.

·  There was little greenbelt left in Morley and the nature conservation area site  could not be compared to the  one provided by the applicant in Goole as the context was different.

·  There would be noise and light pollution for 24 hours a day.

·  The application was inappropriate and should be refused.

·  There had been an active campaign for local residents and it was believed that this was not the right kind of use of the land at this time.  The proposals would be detrimental to the quality of life for local people.

·  Residential properties had been in the location before any of the industrial and commercial development at Capitol Park.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

 

·  Following the meeting in November there had been a number of changes including the clarity provided on the local employment agreement, contribution to the apprenticeship fund and enhanced landscaping proposals.

·  There would be social and ecological benefits including biodiversity net gain.

·  The layouts were indicative at this stage and not fixed.

·  There would be significant highways contributions including enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists around the motorway junction.

·  There had been discussion with the Council, Combined Authority and a major company regarding the use of the development and provision of employment opportunities.

·  There would be the launch of a programme  along with the Morley Town Deal to connect local people to local jobs.  There was a commitment with regard to this application.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  Improvements to the roundabouts and junctions would enable easier crossing for pedestrians and cyclists.

o  Further to concerns expressed regarding the layouts, including size and massing and servicing arrangements, it was reported that the layouts shown were indicative and there would be further consultation before layouts were submitted at the reserved matters stage.

o  The contribution for apprenticeships would be used to provide support for apprentices.  It was proposed to generate 75 apprenticeship places on the scheme.

o  The planting of new trees would be subject to conditions of the land management plan which would require replacements where any trees did not take.

o  It was proposed for the site to be in operation for 24 hours per day.

o  It was proposed to locate the drainage ponds outside the site due to the topography and also to maximise the use of the site.

o  The size of the units would be dependent on the occupier’s requirements.

o  The proposed heights of buildings across the sites were subject to different parameters with the highest proposed building being 22 metres.

o  There was not a detailed scheme at this stage as occupiers would usually wait until the outline planning stage before committing.

o  Distances to nearest residential properties was 85 metres.

o  The indicative layouts were to demonstrate the different designs that could be used.

o  The application was for industrial and commercial units with ancillary office space.

 

In response to questions to officers, the following was discussed:

 

·  The applicant had been demonstrating the way to deliver the requirements within the constraints of the site.  Areas of concern that had been raised could be considered further at the reserved matters stage.

·  With regards to policy EN1, it was not possible to provide figures as there was no detailed design of the buildings at this stage.  Design at reserved matters stage would propose a zero-carbon standard and there was a full commitment for the provision of 10% from renewables.  This could be included as a condition.

·  Information from the policy team had indicated a need and demand for this kind of development in Leeds.

·  The Panel was being asked to consider the maximum heights for the different parcels of land.  The highest being 22.4 metres.

·  Drainage areas within the red line site would have been appropriate.  The applicant had opted for the greenbelt land to maximise the space for employment opportunities and floorspace.  It was not considered that the proposals would lead to inappropriate development within the greenbelt.

·  Improvements to pedestrian access and cycle routes would include widening and resurfacing.  The off-site contributions would include improved access along Dewsbury Road and provision of signalled crossings.

·  Pedestrian and cycle routes within the site would be hard surfaced.

·  The floor space proposed was 102,890 square metres.

·  If this application was approved then that would set out the parameter plans including the maximum heights of buildings.  This would form proposals to be brought at reserved maters stage when further consideration could be given to issues such as design and appearance.

·  At this stage the Panel was being asked to agree the development of the platforms and not the buildings.

 

Issues highlighted during Members comments included the following:

 

·  The buildings would be too high and support would not be given to a height of more than 14 metres.

·  This is not the type of employment site that should be located in this area.

·  The proposal of a 24 hour a day operation with noise and light pollution would not be supported.

·  Impact on the greenbelt – the proposal to use the greenbelt site was not appropriate.

·  Fundamental changes had not been made since the application was last presented to Panel.

·  The local community tolerated current operations at the site which did not disturb outside normal hours.

·  There were other sites which were more suitable for this scale of development and 24-hour operation.

·  It was the wrong kind of employment site for this location.

·  Support can’t be given to a development of this scale and with a 24-hour operation in a residential area.

·  This site represented employment opportunities that were badly needed.

·  There had been significant changes since the November meeting with additional commitments to apprenticeships and extensive landscaping and the recommendations should be supported.

·  The site had been agreed for employment under the Site Allocation Plan process and should be available for this.

·  There are other sites with buildings larger than those proposed.

·  There was no disagreement with the landscaping plans and apprenticeship opportunities.

·  There does not seem to be grounds to refuse the development of the drainage works/ ponds  in the green belt.

·  The developer needs to take account of the issues raised with distances from houses and this should be maximised.  Also the issues with the heights of the buildings.

·  Was there a way of mitigating the 24-hour operation by locating some areas further away from residents.

·  Full details of layouts and distances from residential properties would be needed at the reserved matters stage.

·  Although it was an employment site it didn’t mean that any kind of employment should be developed there.

·  Concern that if this application was agreed at this stage that the Panel could not prevent high buildings too close to residential properties.

·  Concern that there was a reluctance to consider further mitigation towards residents.

·  Further consideration of the layouts with a preferred option would be helpful.

·  Further reassurance was needed for nearby residents and concern regarding heavy goods vehicles using the local area for overnight parking.

 

The Area Planning Manager summarised the discussion.  There were mixed opinions on whether the application should be supported.  Members were reminded that this application would deal with the maximum parameters relating to the height and position of the development.  The detailed layout and appearance of the buildings could be negotiated further with the applicant at reserved matters stage. There were controls to mitigate the impact of the development on local residents. 

 

Following further discussion, it was confirmed that height parameters were specific to each parcel of land and that the application would have to be reconfigured if there was to be any change.

 

The officer recommendation was moved and seconded and was voted against. 

 

A motion was made to defer the application with a view to refuse on the grounds of noise and light pollution; impact on residential amenity; concern regarding the massing and height of the units and further concern regarding development in the greenbelt.  This motion was voted against.

 

A further motion was moved and seconded to defer the application due to concern over the height and size of buildings closest to residential properties, noise and light pollution.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for further discussion between officers and the applicant regarding the maximum massing and heights of the buildings and concerns regarding noise and light pollution.