Agenda item

Application 14/01660/OT - Outline application for residential development (up to 80 dwellings) - Land east of Otley Road Road, Adel, Leeds and Application 14/01874/OT - Outline application for residential development (up to 46 dwellings) and public open space at land east of Church Lane Adel

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development (up to 80 dwellings) and public open space.


  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Although there were two applications for consideration on the same PAS site, the decision was taken to present both applications together, although it was stressed that Panel would need to determine the applications separately

  Application 14/01660/OT was presented by Officers and Members were informed of the revisions made to the scheme which originally had proposed 88 dwellings.  Whilst English Heritage had objected to the original scheme in respect of its impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade 1 Listed Church, the removal of the dwellings sited closest to the church had satisfied English Heritage sufficiently to withdraw its objection, although adequate screening and landscaping had been requested by the organisation

  Application 14/01877/OT was presented by Officers, with Members being informed that a revised plan for this scheme had also been submitted, with access now being from the Centurion Fields development.  English Heritage had also withdrawn their objection to this scheme

  The reasons for refusal of both applications were outlined to Members, with reference being made to the supplementary report which had been circulated prior to the meeting.  Members were also informed that in respect of application 14/01847/OT, the applicant had requested the report be withdrawn to enable highway modelling relating to the NGT proposals to be completed by the NGT team, with the applicant considering it to be unreasonable to refuse the application on potential highway impact when the necessary modelling work, funded by the applicant but carried on behalf of the Council was not completed.  Having considered this, Officers proposed an amendment to reason 2 for refusal on both applications and an additional reason relating to highways on both applications with these being set out in the supplementary report before Panel

  Following additional representations received from the applicant’s highways consultant, further highway improvements were now proposed for both applications.  It was noted that these improvements although welcome, had been made at a late stage and Officers had been unable to fully assess these proposals, however it was felt that reason 4 for refusal of both applications could be deleted, subject to amendments to reason 5 for refusal, as set out in the additional report

  The Transport Development Services Manager clarified the highways issues in respect of both applications and reiterated the view that despite the recent offer of further highways improvements, concerns remained about the impact of the proposals on the local highway network; that not all the data necessary had been provided and that the impact of the proposals on surrounding roads and junctions had not been addressed.  Regarding the issue raised by the applicant around NGT modelling, this had been addressed by amending the reasons for refusal  

The Panel then heard representations from a representative of the applicant who stated he was content to deal with both of the applications at the same time, with the Chair advising that he would have up to 6 minutes to address Members

  Issues raised by the applicant’s representative included:

·  that the area of the site had been reduced and brought within the limit set out in the interim PAS policy

·  that an extension of time was sought to enable the highways modelling work to be completed in order that discussions with Highways Officers could continue on the transport assessment

The Panel then heard representations from a local objector who

outlined local concerns about the two applications, which included:

·  heritage concerns and that some comments on this aspect had not been included in the report before Panel

·  traffic access and the impact of NGT and the proposed Park and Ride

·  the absence of reference to possible impact on historic trees on the site and that this should be included as a reason for refusal of the applications

·  that the applications were premature; that existing infrastructure and facilities were under pressure and that there were issues of sustainability in respect of the proposals

·  proposals for housing development elsewhere in the locality

·  that the developments would not cater for local housing needs

·  issues of housing mix and tenure types

The Panel discussed the applications, with the main areas of

discussion relating to:

·  the merits of deferring consideration to enable further work on the highways issues to be undertaken, with a lack of support for this course of action

·  the transport assessment and the extent to which developments beyond Adel had been considered

·  the strength of the Council’s position on housing land supply and that 6.4 years’ worth of land for housing could be demonstrated

·  the housing needs of Leeds and the large number of brownfield sites which could be developed rather than greenfield sites

·  the historic value of St John’s Church and that despite the comments of English Heritage, the proposals would have an impact on the setting of the church

·  the impact of the proposals on the residents at Centurion Fields, with concerns that a rat-run would be created

·  the need for infrastructure to be considered at an early stage on major housing developments

·  concerns about the lack of school places and the duty Members had as corporate parents

·  possible flooding issues

·  the changes to the planning system brought about by the NPPF; the emphasis on building and development linked to economic recovery; the need for local residents to appreciate the pressures which existed and that each application considered by the Council would be done so fairly

·  the seemingly different approach taken to a housing application on a PAS site in Wetherby, which was recommended for approval.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that the PAS site applications which had come forward had been carefully assessed against the Council’s policy and so far, the Panel had taken the view that where an application complied with the interim PAS policy it should be allowed

RESOLVED -  To note the report, the supplementary report, the

presentation by Officers; the representations made by the applicant’s representative and a local objector and the comments now made and to move to determine each of the applications



Supporting documents: