Previous reference:  Minute 52 (2015/16)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AA”) in relation to a full planning application for alterations and extensions to existing mill buildings to create a mixture of residential and commercial uses including a crèche, spa/gym and restaurant together with 20 new build houses and 6 new build apartments and ancillary infrastructure at Greenholme Mills, Iron Row, Burley in Wharfedale – 15/03339/MAF.

 

The application had been granted planning permission previously, in February 2016, further to consideration by this Committee, on 4 November 2015, and the completion of an associated Section 106 legal agreement. However, further to an application for a Judicial Review, a Consent Order had been made on 29 June 2016 which had the effect of quashing the permission thus necessitating its reconsideration.

 

The report sets out the circumstances and issues associated with the Consent Order and addresses the relevant issues in detail.

 

The report also states that, as the site is within the Green Belt, the Secretary of State will have to be consulted again to ensure that he is still content for the application to be determined by the Council as Local Planning Authority.

 

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 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)            On-site affordable housing provision of 6 units at a level of discount on the open market value of the properties necessary to allow disposal of the properties to a Registered Social Landlord,

(ii)          The payment of a sum of £93,415 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of upgrading the existing educational infrastructure at Menston Primary School or Burley Oaks Primary School,

(iii)         The payment of a sum of £120,660 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of upgrading the existing educational infrastructure at Ilkley Grammar School,

(iv)         The payment of a sum of £21,334 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of improving recreational infrastructure; to be used either towards the delivery of a new Multi Use Games Area on land to the west of Iron Row or for drainage works, footpath works and fencing at Iron Row Recreation Ground and Burley Park,

(v)          On-site Recreation/Open Space Provision:

(a)  Provision of a ‘Public Plaza and Gardens’ in the area shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’, to be made available and accessible for public use in perpetuity in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

(b)  Provision of the ‘Riverside Walk’ in the area shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’ to be made available and accessible for public use in perpetuity in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

(c)  Approval of details and implementation of a plan for the management/maintenance of the Public Plaza and Gardens, Riverside Walk, Woodland Areas and Wildlife Meadows, as shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Strategic Director, Regeneration (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Previous reference:Minute 52 (2015/16)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AA”) in relation to a full planning application for alterations and extensions to existing mill buildings to create a mixture of residential and commercial uses including a crèche, spa/gym and restaurant together with 20 new build houses and 6 new build apartments and ancillary infrastructure at Greenholme Mills, Iron Row, Burley in Wharfedale – 15/03339/MAF. He referred to numerous photographs, floorplans, elevations and layout plans in doing so.

 

The report explained that the application had been granted planning permission previously, in February 2016, further to consideration by this Committee on 4 November 2015 and the completion of an associated Section 106 legal agreement. However, further to an application for a Judicial Review, a Consent Order had been made on 29 June 2016 which had the effect of quashing the permission thus necessitating its reconsideration.

 

The report set out the circumstances and issues associated with the Consent Order and addressed the relevant issues in detail.

 

It also stated that, as the site was within the Green Belt, the Secretary of State would have to be consulted again to ensure that he was still content for the application to be determined by the Council as Local Planning Authority.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the receipt of 90 additional letters of support for the application, since the publication of his report, a number of which had suggested that if development had to take take place in Burley then this was preferable on brownfield sites rather than greenfield or land allocated as Green Belt. He then responded to questions from Members, as follows:

 

·         The whole of the site fell within the Green Belt; he indicated the part of the site that had not been previously developed.

·         In respect of the potential for flooding of the basements; they had been deemed unsuitable for residential use and appropriate conditions were proposed in respect of the inclusion of flood resilience measures.

·         The type and the numbers of vehicles that would have accessed the site when it was in industrial use would be different than the proposed use.  The previous use would have generated a higher number of HGVs and employment use tended to lead to traffic movements at peak times whereas residential use produced a different pattern. It was noted that the site had not been used intensively in the recent past.

·         If the site was in full use with its existing designation the calculations indicated that there would be 85 vehicle movements in the a.m. peak and 75 during the p.m. peak.  The proposed use would generate 82 movements in the a.m. peak and 118 in the p.m. peak; this equated to two per minute so it was not considered that stacking on the A65 would be a problem. It was proposed that the existing gap in the central reservation be closed thus preventing traffic turning right from the A65 into the site.

 

The agent spoke in support of the application:

 

·         Planning permission had been granted in February 2016.

·         It was believed that the application for the Judicial Review had been commercially motivated but the Local Planning Authority’s decision had been quashed.

·         It was considered that the Judicial Review had sought to undermine the decision making process.

·         The Green Belt and employment policy issues had been addressed by officers whose recommendation remained the same as in February 2016.

·         The site included a range of high quality buildings that were important to the village.

·         The application represented important inward investment and would allow the buildings to be retained with a range of uses.

·         The Core Strategy identified Burley as a growth centre providing 700 new homes.  Many of these would be achieved through changes to the Green Belt.

·         The development of Greenholme Mills would provide 92 units on brownfield/previously developed land.  This would reduce the amount of greenfield or Green Belt land that would be required.

·         Planning policy generally encouraged the development of brownfield land or the reuse of previously developed land.

·         Only 5% of this site could be considered to be ‘greenfield’.

·         The issue of the impact on openness was addressed in detail and objectively assessed in Paragraphs 26 to 45 of the Assistant Director’s technical report.

·         The Local Planning Authority had concluded that very special circumstances applied in this case.

·         The site currently only supported a relatively small number of jobs with low returns.  It was not viable to continue to use this site for employment use.  The existing buildings were not suitable for modern use.

·         The application complied with the relevant policies, E4 and EC4.

·         The development did include commercial activity and would assist with community development.

·         If the mill was to be retained it needed to be developed with a mix of compatible uses.

·         The applicant was keen to connect the development with Burley and to open up the river front.

·         Community involvement/consultation had taken place with the Parish Council, who supported the application, and the public.

·         All the requirements of the Local Planning Authority had been met and the contributions set out in the associated Section 106 legal agreement had been agreed.

·         The application would meet 60% of the identified annual need for affordable housing in Wharfedale and address the decline of an important heritage asset.

 

He answered questions from Members:

 

·         It had been a considerable time since the buildings had been fully used for commercial purposes.  It was believed that the main mill had maintained a vacancy rate in excess of 40% for at least ten years.

·         Materials and finishes would be discussed with officers and if considered unsuitable they could be changed.

·         The architect had sought to minimise the amount of built development in the greenfield area.  This piece of land had two functions within the overall development it would provide rear garden space for a number of the dwellings and would provide a green strip, with trees, alongside Great Pasture.  The wall which currently delineated the upper yard area would be re-positioned closer to Great Pasture to facilitate this and would provide some screening of the new garden areas.

 

Further to a site visit, the Assistant Director responded to further questions from Members:

 

·         There was no record of the site flooding although part of the site did fall within Flood Zone 2 which indicated that it only had between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year probability of flooding.

·         The basements would be constructed so that any floodwater did not cause damage.

·         He was satisfied that the proposals were not contrary to Environment Agency guidance and national policy.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         The issue of flooding had been addressed.

·         The highway issues, including the closure of the gap in the reservation on the A65, had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

·         This was a wonderful building and efforts should be made to retain it for its heritage value.

·         Only parts of the building were now suitable for modern employment purposes and this application recognised that.

·         In terms of impact on the Green Belt; having visited the site it had been observed that the lower area of the site was virtually hidden from view.

·         It was accepted that this site was within the Green Belt and this had to be carefully considered and taken very seriously; Paragraphs 26 to 45 of the Assistant Director’s report considered this issue at great length and it was considered that the application was acceptable.

·         A large part of the site had previously been developed.

·         The greenfield element would be used in the main for garden space.

·         There would be a significant improvement in respect of other parts of the site.

·         Taken as a whole the development would provide an improvement upon the existing situation.

·         It was clear that the site was not suitable for significant employment use.  Attempts had been made to market the site as such.  Some employment opportunities were included within the proposed development.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved –

 

(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 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)            On-site affordable housing provision of 6 units at a level of discount on the open market value of the properties necessary to allow disposal of the properties to a Registered Social Landlord,

(ii)          The payment of a sum of £93,415 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of upgrading the existing educational infrastructure at Menston Primary School or Burley Oaks Primary School,

(iii)         The payment of a sum of £120,660 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of upgrading the existing educational infrastructure at Ilkley Grammar School,

(iv)         The payment of a sum of £21,334 to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of improving recreational infrastructure; to be used either towards the delivery of a new Multi Use Games Area on land to the west of Iron Row or for drainage works, footpath works and fencing at Iron Row Recreation Ground and Burley Park,

(v)          On-site Recreation/Open Space Provision:

(a)  Provision of a ‘Public Plaza and Gardens’ in the area shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’, to be made available and accessible for public use in perpetuity in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

(b)  Provision of the ‘Riverside Walk’ in the area shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’ to be made available and accessible for public use in perpetuity in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

(c)  Approval of details and implementation of a plan for the management/maintenance of the Public Plaza and Gardens, Riverside Walk, Woodland Areas and Wildlife Meadows, as shown on the ‘Landscape Management Plan’,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Strategic Director, Regeneration (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor