Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of a 120 capacity Wedding Venue, 40 Holiday Lodges, and a Cafe/Community Hub building at Fleet Lane Oulton Leeds LS26

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a position statement on an application for the erection of a 120 capacity wedding venue, 40 holiday lodges and a café/community hub building at Fleet Lane, Oulton, Leeds, LS26.

Photographs and slides were shown throughout the officer presentation, and the following information was provided:

·  The site is a fuel depot, currently unused for that purpose, situated within the Green Belt between Woodlesford and Allerton Bywater. The site is situated on a portion of land surrounded by the River Aire and the Aire and Calder Navigation.

·  The site is allocated in the Natural Resources and Waste DPD as a protected wharf under policy Minerals 13. There are only 3 protected wharfs in Leeds, with only 1 in use.

·  The wedding venue is proposed to sit in the centre of the site with the holiday lodges spread across the site with a network of various paths.

·  There will be car parking spaces for each of the lodges.

·  It is proposed that there will be 40 holiday lodges, ranging from 1-bed, 2-bed and 4-bed as well as a honeymoon suite.

·  To the north of the site is where the community hub / café is proposed. This will be for customers to the wedding venue or lodges and will have a green roof and solar panels.

·  There will be increased biodiversity onsite with 196 trees proposed to be planted.

·  The site is proposed to be raised 3-4m above ground levels.

·  The proposals are intended to be contemporary in design with large, glazed windows.

·  There is a proposed roof terrace and bar, with lift access.

·  There are several objections from Commercial Boat Operators Association, West Riding Branch od Inland Waterways Association and residents. As well as several comments of support from residents, Swillington Ings Bird Group, Leeds Civic Trust, and Oulton and Woodlesford Neighbourhood Forum.

·  Matters that remain outstanding for consideration relate to the loss of a protected wharf site, the impact on the Greenbelt, flooding of the site, access of the site, scheme raised above ground level and will be spread across the site, the main access to the site is narrow and has poor foot links and transport.

Councillor Golton, a supporter of the application attended the meeting and provided the following information:

·  The proposals have the endorsement of local ward councillors and the wider community.

·  The application is unfairly weighted towards an officer refusal recommendation.

·  The fully Adopted Local Plan has not been used when considering the proposals. The Plan shows how the proposals will fit in with the geography and policies referred to are outdated.

·  The proposals will increase leisure usage of the area and an enhanced leisure destination.

·  Officers object to parking in the Greenbelt, but the proposals formalise what is already onsite.

·  The Canals and Rivers Trust provides no parking or little bin facilities.

·  The adjacent RSPB St Aidan’s is a major attraction, with only 1 official car park located 2.3m away.

·  Comments as written by the officers in the application do not seek to deliver optimal outcomes for the locality.

Further to questions to officers, the following was confirmed:

·  There is a current demand for freight to be carried in this area and Stourton is over capacity. Any additional information regarding statistics can be provided at a later date should a full planning application be presented.

·  The Adopted Local Plan will be fully included in any full application that may be presented.

·  The flood risk test has not been adequately addressed and the flood risk team have raised an objection. The applicant has confirmed that there will be offsite flooding as a result of raising the land.

·  Each of the lodges have an allocated parking space and there is also an offsite car park.

·  Officers raise concerns in relation to noise and light pollution on St Aidan’s Local Wildlife Site and Lemonroyd Marina. Raised levels of the site will also impact on noise travelling.

·  Officers confirmed that the applicant is hesitant to undertake further work regarding the application if the direction of travel from officers cannot fully resolve issues. If members take a different view, the applicant may be willing to submit further information and proceed with the application.

·  The green credentials of the holiday lodges are not yet known and a dependent outcome on this is awaited.

·  Any land contamination will be dealt with by specific conditions. It is presumed that the storage containers are onsite are empty.

Members comments in relation to the officers questions in the submitted report were relayed as follows:

Question 1: Do Members agree that Green Belt policy is not satisfied? Yes. Members requested that further information is required from the applicant to accept that the development of this site is acceptable in the Greenbelt.

Question 2: Do members agree that the issue of flood risk has not been resolved? Yes. Members requested that further information is required from the applicant to accept that the development of this site does not present a flood risk.

Question 3: Do members consider loss of a protected wharf site is justified? Not currently as further information is required to understand the need/demand for the use of this wharf.

Question 4: Do members consider the loss of an employment site is justified? Members requested further information to be persuaded. However, they were clear that it was not necessarily a loss of employment as jobs in hospitality is employment. Members also noted that there is currently minimal opportunities for jobs onsite and the proposals seek to add additional employment in the area.

Question 5: Do members consider the location is acceptable according to the locational policies of the plan? Members concerns were raised about its location in sustainability and accessibility terms but did not wish the site to remain derelict for a prolonged period waiting for a form of employment that would fit within the Policy description of ‘Employment’ that may never happen. Members do not object to the development, but commented that highway boundaries and works need to be considered.

Question 6: Are there any other matters, that relate to the scope of consideration of this application, that Members wish to raise? the Panel broadly supported the application and understood the policy context but considered that the proposal would be good for the area if it could be made to work in a sustainable manner.

RESOLVED – To note the contents of the report on the proposals and to provide views in relation to the questions posed in the submitted report to aid the progression of the application.