In the interests of transparency, Councillor Rickard disclosed that he lived in the Wharfedale Ward but had had no involvement with any of the applications under consideration. He was also a trustee of Moorlands Learning Trust, which encompassed Ilkley Grammar School.

ACTION:       Interim City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2017 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2017 be signed as a correct record.

ACTION:       Interim City Solicitor

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Sheila Farnhill - 01274 432268)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

NO ACTION

The Committee will be asked to consider recommendations, if any, to appoint Members to Sub-Committees of the Committee.

                                                            (Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That Sue Thompson, representing the Bradford District Clinical Commissioning Group, be appointed to the Corporate Parenting Panel for the remainder of the 2017/18 municipal year in place of Ali Jan Haider.

ACTION:       Interim City Solicitor

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AC”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO.

Recommended –

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009, as a departure from the Development Plan and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

(i)            Affordable housing provision of 30% of the total units on site (or equivalent value); these units to be prioritised for people living in, working in or having close family links to the Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish and secondly the wider Wharfedale area.

(ii)          The safeguarding of an area of land within the site for the provision of an up to two form entry Primary School and to offer this land to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, if requested, in order to deliver the school.

(iii)         Payment of commuted sums to secure highway improvements and sustainable travel measures as follows:

(a)  £15,000 for a review of the existing Traffic Regulation Orders on Main Street, Burley-in-Wharfedale; to include a review of waiting restrictions, loading restrictions and the potential for 20 mph speed restrictions. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 1^st unit.

(b)  £55,000 for traffic calming and footway strengthening Traffic Regulation Orders in the Sun Lane area. This sum to be payable upon completion of the pedestrian link between the site and Sun Lane.

(c)  £40,000 to implement improvements to the A65 Coutances Way/Wheatley Lane Junction; taking the form of the installation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) within the traffic signals.  This sum to be payable on occupation of the 401^st unit.

(d)  £25,000  towards Vehicle Activated Signs and the introduction of traffic islands on Manor Park. This sum to be payable upon completion of the ghost island right turn lane access into the site from the A65 (as shown on Drawing 13-215-TR-009A).

(e)  £65,000 towards TR2500 Controller specification software improvements to the traffic lights at the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction. This  ...  view the full agenda text for item 56.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AC”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on a number of amendments and updates to his report including the replacement of the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ with ‘very special circumstances’ throughout and the addition of the following paragraph following the second paragraph of the ‘Reason for Granting Planning Permission’ on Page 52:

‘Therefore it is considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant the grant of planning permission for this development in the Green Belt.’

He also reported on the substance of additional representations and additional documentation, received further to the publication of his technical report, from a local resident and the Ward Councillors.

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members:

·         This was an outline application and, as such, would not establish the final layout of the development.

·         The sewer across/through the site was not a reason for objection as it could be diverted or the development designed to avoid it..

·         He was aware that lower parts of the site had flooded in the past; the existing watercourse having backed up from the River Wharfe.  There had been no flooding in the preceding ten years on the parts of the site where the houses were shown on the indicative masterplan.

·         The Flood Risk Assessment concluded that the development would not create additional flooding risk. Conditions were proposed in respect of drainage works.

·         Any development undertaken outside Flood Zone 1 would constitute a breach of condition.

·         A condition was proposed in respect of the maximum permitted forward flow of surface water from the development.

·         Yorkshire Water had not raised any objection to the application and the sewerage system was its responsibility. The Local Planning Authority accepted this position.  He was not aware of any concerns with the network in this location.

·         The Council had adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Scheme in 2017 and this money could not be ring-fenced. Contributions went into a central pot (with the exception of a proportion allocated to the relevant Parish or Town Council) and the Council then decided how it should be spent in accordance with its ‘Regulation 123 list’. Education infrastructure was one of the priorities on that list.

·         A primary school was proposed to be provided as part of this development.

·         The Council’s Education Planning Team did monitor planning consents and their implementation in order to plan for the future.

·         This was an outline application and did not include  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AD”) in relation to a outline application for the construction of a residential development scheme comprising up to 15 dwellings with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land to the east of Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00496/MAO.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AD”) in relation to a outline application for the construction of a residential development scheme comprising up to 15 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land to the east of Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00496/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on a number of amendments and updates to his report including the replacement of the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ with ‘very special circumstances’ throughout.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee he stated that the adjacent site was not within the blue edged boundary and was not in the same ownership. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be in the region of £120,000 to £150,000 dependent on the level of floorspace constructed.

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

·         He concurred with the officer’s recommendation.

·         The A65 was a clearly defined boundary between Burley and Otley; this development would be a clear encroachment onto the land separating these settlements.

·         Any existing properties on the same side of the road as this site had been constructed prior to the introduction of planning legislation.

·         There were double white lines along the length of the A65 to Sandholme Drive.

·         This section of the A65 was very congested and also suffered with speeding traffic.

·         The proposed access would be between Sandholme Drive and Menston Old Lane; there was already a church, a village hall and a petrol station accessed off this section of the A65 together with various junctions; it was far from ideal for a housing development.

The applicant’s agent put forward the following arguments in support of the application:

·         The applicant had worked closely with the Parish Council on its Neighbourhood Plan for a two year period with the aim of achieving its preferences for the location of new housing. Local residents and the Parish Council considered that the size and scale of the proposed development at Sun Lane was not appropriate.

·         The Parish Council had envisaged a range of sites satisfying the requirement for new houses.

·         It had been acknowledged that a contribution to the delivery of the housing target for Burley may be required from this site.

·         It was considered that there were no technical reasons to refuse the application.

·         The scheme would provide much needed homes and support social and economic infrastructure. There was an acute shortage of homes in the district; this scheme would make a contribution and support one of its Local Growth Centres.

·         The deficit in the five year supply was recognised in the officer’s report. The Core Strategy recognised that the Green Belt needed to change.

·         This development would bring about an immediate social infrastructure improvement; whereas a large scale scheme could take years to realise.

·         Affordable housing and CIL funds would be provided.

·         It was important that there was a choice and a mix of sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) considers an outline planning application for up to 40 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site on land at Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00497/MAO.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) considered an outline planning application for up to 40 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land at Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00497/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on a number of amendments and updates to his report including the replacement of the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ with ‘very special circumstances’ throughout.

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

·         This site was along the road from the previous application.  There were still double white lines at this point and there were speed awareness signs.

·         Endor Crescent had a narrow entrance which meant that vehicles turning into it had to slow right down on the main road and move out towards the centre of the carriageway.

·         There were already a number of junctions/access points onto the A65 in this locality.

·         It was not considered that the development of the site as proposed would be appropriate and the recommendation for refusal was supported; the other Ward Councillors also supported refusal.

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application:

·         This land was owned by the same family as the preceding application and the same points were pertinent to its consideration.

·         There were no technical reasons to refuse the application.

·         There was an acute need for new housing.

·         There was a need for a choice/mix of sites.

·         This site could be delivered imminently.

·         There would be a limited impact on the Green Belt.

·         The density appeared low as a result of the inclusion of the allotments. Many meetings had been held with the Parish Council in respect of the delivery of the Neighbourhood Plan and there had been considerable interest in the retention of the allotments.  If the development went ahead as proposed this area of land would be gifted to the Parish Council as a social infrastructure gain. It should not therefore be included in the calculation for the density of development.

·         The landowner and his family had lived in Burley in Wharfedale for many years and cared about the village.

·         The Parish Council wished to provide a mix of sites in different localities and with social infrastructure improvements.

·         All sites would contribute towards the chronic five year housing supply deficit.

The Assistant Director said that:

·         The allotments had not been included in the description of the development although they were shown in the indicative layout.  If the application was approved as presented a different layout could then be submitted with the proposed dwellings more widely spread out across the whole site.

·         In terms of the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan; it was deemed to be emerging policy and could be taken into account.  The Neighbourhood Plan did refer to allotment provision and inferred that the Parish Council supported the principle of additional facilities but consideration was needed in respect of whether this was appropriate in the location proposed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.