Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an Outline Planning Application for the erection of nine dwellings, with some matters reserved except for access at Field off Westerton Road, Tingley, WF3 1AE.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a report for an Outline Planning Application for the erection of nine dwellings, with some matters reserved except for access at Field Off Westerton Road, Tingley, WF3 1AE.

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

·  The development will be accessed off the new road and junction from Westerton Road (currently being constructed) serving part of the adjacent Redrow Homes development, the latter being built out pursuant to SAP allocations HG2-168 and HG2-169, under outline planning permissions references 17/08262/OT (for up to 299 dwellings) and 21/07156/RM (for 289 dwellings).

·  The site is a small agricultural piece of land that forms part of a wider area of open land that sits within the built-up area of West Ardsley. The application site is within designated land under saved UDP Policy N11, which restricts uses within the land to open uses only, such as agriculture or recreation.

·  The current proposal for up to 9 dwellings is an outline planning application, seeking to establish the principle of residential development in that location. It does not include its design, layout, appearance of houses etc.

·  The application site was not put forward as a site for SAP allocations at the time the other parcels of land were. Only open land uses are permitted on the application site. The proposal for residential development does not come into the use of UDP Policy N11 and it is considered to impact on the openness and character of the area. Therefore, officers are putting forward a recommendation to refuse the application.

·  Additional cars will also be using the access point, creating access and highway safety issues.

The applicant and representatives were invited to make representation. The following was highlighted:

·  Language used refers to Greenbelt determination rather than small windfall sites.

·  There is confusion regarding Policy N11, and Panel Members were asked to defer the matter.

·  Officers previously advised that the application would be presented at Plans Panel with a recommendation of approval, until 13^th October where the applicant was advised that they had investigated Policy N11 in greater detail and discussed with landscape and ecology colleagues and therefore the recommendation changed to refusal. Further to discussions with senior landscape and ecology officers, they also presented support for the application.

·  The land will be surrounded with new and future development and there are no long-distance views to be protected because of such development.

·  There is a benefit in approving a small windfall site rather than a field full of houses.

Further to a question regarding affordable housing, it was confirmed that there is no requirement to provide affordable housing on a proposal for 9 dwellings.

Further to questions to officers, the following information was confirmed:

·  Officers cannot answer whether the parcel of land would have been determined as part of the SAP process in determining land. It was reiterated that the Local Planning Authority do have an allocated SAP and Core Strategy and forms part of development documents and a designation within the Local Plan.

·  It is not unusual for officers to have different opinions. The original recommendation was to refuse the application, and the applicant convinced officers otherwise. Officers have since then reverted to their original decision and is recommending the application for refusal.

Further to comments from Panel Members, the following was relayed:

·  The local community are already impacted by the addition of 299 dwellings and the community are not benefiting from the development and will not want any additional housing.

·  There is an increased impact on local infrastructure, local schools, and health centres.

·  The Panel should not deviate from existing policies and the site does not form part of the SAP. The site sits within UDP Policy N11, and it is not considered a reasonable loss of open land.

·  It is 9 dwellings with 4-bedrooms, and it does not suit the housing mix.

·  The proposal will create another loss of greenspace and amenity.

Upon voting, a motion was put forward to move the officer recommendation. It was moved and seconded to refuse planning permission. Therefore, it was unanimously

RESOLVED – To refuse planning permission.