The Assistant Director (Planning , Transportation & Highways) will present a report (Document “BB”) which sets out an application for outline planning permission for residential development of land, requesting consideration of access at the Willows, Hainsworth Road, Silsden.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to completion of the Section 106 and conditions contained within Document “BB”.

(Mark Hutchinson – 01274 434380)

Note: at the commencement of this item Councillor Warburton resumed the chair.

The Assistant Director (Planning , Transportation & Highways) presented a report (Document “BB”) which set out an application for outline planning permission for residential development of land, requesting consideration of access at the Willows, Hainsworth Road, Silsden.

A comprehensive presentation was made in respect of the application, with plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area being shared. It was noted that a previous application had been refused on the grounds highway safety and that, when the Planning Inspector had considered the consequent appeal, it had been refused on the grounds of lack of affordable housing not highways issues. 

This application had been assessed as satisfactory by the highways officer and the issue of affordable housing had also been addressed by the applicant. Objections to this application had been received on the grounds of poor access and highway safety.

A member queried the issue of visibility and was advised that the road scheme had been designed to cause no conflict for road users and that the roundabout being referred to was half a mile away from the development. Any issues of visibility caused by the hedging was able to be dealt with by the Council, with the landowner being recharged if necessary.

A ward councillor joined the meeting to represent residents’ concerns about this application. She highlighted that the site was on both a narrow lane and a blind bend and expressed some doubt that those issues could be mitigated.

She advised the Committee that an incident had occurred at this location which had required the presence of firefighters and that they had needed to park their vehicle and continue on foot as access was so poor; she considered this to be very concerning.

She also opposed the cutting back of protected hedgerows and, while welcoming the inclusion of affordable housing, she considered that the properties would not be affordable for first time buyers.

In response to a question in respect of the weight carried by the Core Strategy which was currently out for consultation, members were advised that it carried little weight as yet and that until its adoption, applications must continue to be considered on the extant policies and their individual merits.

It was also highlighted that the site, while greenfield, was not in the green belt and that the application would contribute to the council’s target for housing supply. Members were reminded that the previous application had not been dismissed by the Inspector on highways grounds.

In respect of the ward councillor’s point about emergency access it was explained that access to the Willows would be improved as a result of this development. It was also explained that management of the protected hedgerows would be undertaken appropriately and sympathetically.

A town councillor also joined the meeting and advised that his town council had considered that the application should be rejected as it represented part of an ongoing overdevelopment of the village. He expressed concern about the capacity of the new school accept additional pupils and stated that traffic levels had increased. The road to this site was extremely narrow, with two cars unable to pass side by side, and it was on a blind bend. He also advised that the Canal and Rivers Trust had expressed reservations about development very close to the river bank.

In response, the Assistant Director stated that Silsden was classed as a settlement area where development was accepted, so this development could not be regarded as overdevelopment. He repeated that no highways concerns had been raised by officers and explained that the new village school would be moving to two form entry so there would be capacity for the expected number of additional students. He advised that no statutory agency had raised concern when consulted on the application and that there was no requirement for this development to contribute to the towpath improvement being undertaken by the Canal and Rivers Trust.

The Principal Engineer – Highway Development Control confirmed that it was expected that there would be very little traffic impact from this development.

A local resident joined the meeting and spoke in objection to the application, expressing his disappointment that it was being considered again after previously being refused. He also expressed reservations about the efficacy of the proposed highway priority scheme and considered that the application should not be decided in advance of the adoption of the Local Plan.

He was advised that the Local Plan was in the early stages of development and consultation and that it would be premature to use it to make a decision on this application, nor would it be appropriate to await a decision on the Plan.

The Committee’s legal advisor commented that, while understanding the concerns of the objector, he did not consider it likely that an appeal could be defended if this application was refused on highways concerns. He also advised that the draft Local Plan held very little weight in its current state and that it would gain in importance at each milestone it passed; the plan process  could typically take over three years from start to finish. He advised that, due to the Council currently not being able to identify a five year housing supply then the ‘Tilted Balance’ contained in the NPPF would apply. This meant that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless any other material considerations militated against it.

The agent for the applicant joined the meeting and reminded members that the previous application had also been recommended to the Committee for approval. He stated that works were already underway in respect of the local electricity sub-station and that the S106 agreement had been signed by all parties. There were no concerns about school places at this stage but that issue could be addressed at reserved maters stage. Conditions were being proposed to protect trees, the canal and drainage and must all be complied with.

A member noted that the report made mention of a bronze age barrow site and asked that this be protected. He was informed that this was already covered by one of the proposed conditions.

The Chair commented that he remained concerned about highway safety but accepted that officers had assessed the application. He requested that this application return to the Committee at reserved maters stage for this reason.

Resolved –

(1)  That the application be approved subject to completion of the Section 106 and conditions contained within Document “BB”.

(2)  That any reserved matters applications which are submitted should also come before this Committee.

ACTION: Assistant Director, Transportation, Planning and Highways