Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for conversion of Newall Church Hall to form 2 dwellings and residential development of land to the rear for 4 dwellings with associated greenspace, landscaping and infrastructure at Newall Church Hall, Newall Carr Road, Otley, LS21 2AF.

The attached report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for conversion of Newall Church Hall to form 2 dwellings and residential development of land to the rear for 4 dwellings with associated greenspace, landscaping and infrastructure.

The report recommended to the Panel that the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to conditions detailed in the report and to enable completion of the advertisement period of the application as a departure from the Development Plan.

Panel Members referenced above had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

Site plans, photographs and GCGI images were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and contents of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  Following this they provided responses to questions raised by Panel Members, which included the following:

·  The area behind the church hall was previously used as allotments and also as a play park.

·  In 1999 the residents of The Crescent were approached regarding proposals that the land be converted to a millennium park with part of the Church Hall to be used as a tea room.  This did not happen.

·  The land has been used and operated in various guises by the Council.

·  In 2018 residents received a letter from the church, that due to lack of council support in looking after the land, it was proposed to develop the land.  Initial proposals had been for the development of 12 houses and conversion of the church hall.  The land was then sold to a developer who had proposed a development with 8 houses and subsequently reduced to a development with 6 houses before this latest set of proposals.

The applicant’s representative was invited to address the Panel.  Following this, they provided responses to questions raised by Panel Members, which included the following:

·  The baseline for biodiversity was based on the position at the time the application was submitted.

·  There was a request from West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (WYAS) and it had been agreed that a pre-commencement archaeological dig would be appropriate.

·  The biodiversity net gain would be achieved through the landscape scheme both on and off site and with the tree planting scheme which was higher than the required ratio.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  The proposal for the planting of 15 trees in the council owned green space had been offered by the developer.

·  The matrix had shown that the applicant could achieve the necessary biodiversity uplift.

·  There had been discussions with WYAS and there would be a condition for pre-commencement works.

·  There would be a detailed construction management plan prior to the commencement of any works.

·  On balance it was felt that the proposals  and setting aside the SAP allocation were acceptable.

·  The Otley Neighbourhood Plan actually gave weight to the proposals as it raised that there was a surplus of greenspace which included the Otley plantation, part of which was outside the council boundaries.  The site was not designated as greenspace in the Otley Neighbourhood Plan.

·  The site was designated as greenspace within the site allocation plan.

·  Distances to the nearest existing properties met and exceeded policy requirements.  The low density nature of the proposal would maintain views for existing properties.

·  The church hall was a valuable community building and it was disputed that it was surplus as a community asset.  Various groups had been interested in using the hall.

·  The land was still usable for recreation and should not be developed.

·  There was not a surplus of greenspace within Otley and Yeadon.

·  Although the proposals were of a good design there was concern regarding the lack of greenspace.

·  It was not felt that the proposal was compliant with Policy G6. A motion was made to refuse on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to policy G6, the impact on a non-designated heritage asset, impact on wildlife, biodiversity net gain and the impact on an archaeological site.

The motion was seconded and upon voting, it was:

RESOLVED – That the application be refused and a further report be brought back to Panel with detailed reasons for refusal based on:

·  Development policy contrary to G6

·  Loss of the site would impact negatively on wildlife.

·  Negative impact of proposal on non-designated heritage asset.

·  Biodiversity mitigation inadequate.

·  Unacceptable impacts on archaeology within the site.

(Councillor P Wray left the meeting following this item and Councillor M Mir-France assumed the Chair).