A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AB”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and a residential development of up to 142 houses, with means of access to be considered, on land at the Former Riverside Works, Keighley Road, Silsden – 16/03804/MAO.

 

Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are not for consideration at this stage.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the application 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)            20% on-site affordable housing provision ( 2 and 3 bedroom units),

(ii)          The payment of a commuted sum of £265,299 for the improvement of educational infrastructure at primary level in Silsden,

(iii)         The payment of a commuted sum of £141,132 towards the enhancement of recreation facilities in Silsden; to be used towards the following priorities: (i) the provision of additional community facilities in Silsden to include bringing the existing structures in the park back into use and providing a new facility/flexible space for sports/meetings/changing rooms for those playing sports in the park; (ii) the retention of the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) next to the Youth Centre in Eliot Street or towards general recreational facilities in Silsden Park,

(iv)         The payment of a contribution of £20,000 to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats by bringing forward improvements on nearby footpath routes,

(v)          The payment of a contribution of £100,000 towards the provision of a footbridge to cross the A629.

(vi)         The payment of a contribution of £20,000 for the provision of two bus shelters for stop numbers 16917 and 16918,

(vii)       The safeguarding of the area of land adjacent to the proposed junction with Keighley Road, as shown hatched in red on Plan Reference: SIL-BWB-00-01-DR-TR-101 Rev P1, to provide for any improvements to the junction which may be required in future to facilitate access beyond the current application site,

(viii)      A Section 278 Agreement in respect of the delivery of necessary works on Keighley Road to facilitate access to the site,

 

            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)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AB”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and a residential development of up to 142 houses, with means of access to be considered, on land at the Former Riverside Works, Keighley Road, Silsden – 16/03804/MAO. It was noted that appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were not for consideration at this stage.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of a further representation which raised, amongst other issues, the treatment of Japanese Knotweed.  He explained that one of the proposed conditions would require a detailed contamination survey to be undertaken and any Japanese Knotweed would be considered as part of that process along with any remediation that was necessary.

 

He also reported on additional comments made by one of the Ward Councillors which raised concern in respect of the proposed payment of monies to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority for the improvement of bus stops on Keighley Road.  It was believed that finance had already been secured for these improvements as part of previous planning permissions in the area and that this money (£20,000) should therefore be directed towards other infrastructure improvements instead.  The Assistant Director confirmed that these improvements had been a requirement of previous planning permissions.  Funding for one of the stops had been secured through the retail development on the opposite side of the road but there could not be any guarantee that the other developments would go ahead.

 

The Ward Councillor had also raised issues in respect of the flood attenuation proposals in light of the flooding that had taken place in the area over Christmas 2015. He explained the drainage as it currently affected the site and how run-off would be controlled through the use of vortex attenuation tanks.  The tanks would be of sufficient size so that if Silsden Beck was full the outflow would be minimised.  He also confirmed that all details of the drainage would be submitted for full consideration at the stage of a Reserved Matters application being submitted.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director clarified that:

 

·         If any funding obtained through a Section 106 legal obligation was not spent it would have to be returned to the developer concerned after a certain period of time.  It could only be spent on the matters stated within the agreement.

·         A specific concern had been raised by the Town Council in relation to the width of the internal access road but this was not a matter for consideration at this stage and would be looked at when the application for Reserved Matters was submitted

·         The Town Council had also raised concern with respect to the position of the main point of access relative to the supermarket development on the other side of Keighley Road but Highways Development Control were satisfied that the proposed arrangements were acceptable.

·         In respect of the risk that one bus shelter may not be provided if the £20,000 from this development was re-allocated, he said that Members could split the money, if they considered it appropriate. If so he would recommend that it should be put towards a shelter for the West side of Keighley Road as, on the basis of the present circumstances, this would only be provided should the development at Belton Road go ahead. The necessary funding for the improvement of the stop on the Eastern side of the road had already been secured from the supermarket development. If the improvement of the West side bus stop was secured through this development then the contribution required from the Belton Road development would no longer need to be paid.

·         The main access would be a standard priority T junction with a ‘ghost island’ which would be implemented through the use of white lines rather than any physical structure.

·         It should be borne in mind that this site was previously developed land and had accommodated industrial uses.

·         He was unable to give an answer in respect of when a by-pass for Silsden would be provided.  The assessment of this application had to consider whether it placed additional unbearable strain on the traffic situation travelling in and out of Silsden.  The calculation of likely trips on the basis of current behaviour had determined that the majority of people would turn right when exiting the site and the provision of a by-pass would therefore not be of benefit in this case.  In terms of the further development of Silsden and safeguarded sites to the North-East this would be something that would have to be considered at the time of the submission of any application(s) for development.

 

A representative of the Town Council put forward the following points:

 

·         The site was designated for employment use but it had been recognised that there was no job growth in Silsden.

·         The highway works should take account of the adjacent site identified within the Council’s SHLAA (Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment) and the junction completed, with traffic signals, to address all the needs at one time rather than causing two lots of disruption.

·         There was concern that there would be conflict between the access and the second access to Sykes Lane.

·         It was questioned whether the units provided would count towards the allocation for Silsden set out in the Core Strategy.

·         A cycle lane needed to be included in the design for the junction.

·         A particular concern was traffic turning right out of the site towards Steeton.

·         When an application for retail use of this site had been considered it had been stated that there was a ‘ransom strip’ of land owned by the Council; it was questioned whether any proceeds from the sale of this would be ringfenced for use in Silsden.

·         The regeneration of brownfield sites was to be welcomed.

·         It was questioned whether the blockages found in the existing drainage system had been cleared.  There was a concern that the existing drainage may be contributing to nearby flooding.

·         The ‘Weetwood’ flood risk assessment document indicated potential flooding at the entrance which could isolate the site, it was questioned how this would be controlled.

·         In respect of the money for the bus stops it was requested that the money be used for a crossing point to facilitate access to the sites to the east or bus stops to the West and South, the improvement of footpaths to the town centre or the provision of cycle routes.

 

A local resident put forward the following points:

 

·         There were a number of issues that needed to be addressed to alleviate residents’ concerns

·         It was considered that the access arrangements did not take account of the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

·         The drainage at the junction was a matter of concern; where would the water go if all the tanks were full?

·         If the outflow was via the culvert at Belton Road this should be further down unless it was increased in size.

·         A concern was that problems could be caused further downstream at Stocksbridge.

·         It was questioned whether Yorkshire Water would provide the necessary maintenance and could the public have confidence that this would be done.

·         The highway issues around Silsden were well known.

·         The applicant had identified blockages to drains on the site but had they been cleared? The site may not be developed for another two years and residents did not want to be flooded again.

·         Would the traffic signals be phased? It had taken an hour to travel from Silsden to Bradford this morning.

·         The proposed bus stop monies which were also covered by other developments should be directed towards the improvement of footpaths to facilitate access to the bus stops.

·         It would be difficult to access the railway station from the site.

·         A number of houses near the site had been flooded; when it rained the road turned into a stream.

·         A secondary access road had been obstructed by a pile of mud which had made the problem worse, flood defence measures had also exacerbated the situation.

 

The Assistant Director made the following comments in response:

 

·         Any dwellings built on this site would contribute to the numbers for Silsden set out in the Core Strategy.

·         The ‘ransom strip’ ran along the frontage of the site; the utilisation of any money that was gained from any sale was not a planning consideration but he was believed that it would not be straightforward to ringfence it for the Silsden area.

·         The access road for this site would also provide access to land partly owned by the Council; he was not aware of the financial and legal issues associated with that and it was not a matter for consideration as part of this planning application.

·         In terms of the highway works it was accepted that, in an  ideal world, the junction works would all be undertaken at the same time but that would mean that this developer would be undertaking works for the benefit of a future development in which he/she had no interest. It would also mean that there would be less money available either for education infrastructure improvements or towards the footbridge.  In addition it was only ever reasonable to ask any one developer to address the strain caused by their development.

·         There was insufficient width to provide a cycle land of any meaningful length.

·         There would be two traffic islands that would facilitate crossing the road to access the sites on the east side of Keighley Road.

·         In respect of the pooling of water at the junction and localised flooding the developer would be expected to produce a drainage strategy that would take account of these issues and may well improve upon the existing situation. A lot of investigation work had been undertaken in this area.  The outfall from the site would not allow water from the Beck to come back into the system.

·         The secondary access would only be for use by pedestrians or in an emergency; the existing obstruction would have to be removed; this may have been put there to prevent illegal access onto the site.

·         Once the site was developed it would have a specifically designed drainage system.  There would be a calculation of how large the attenuation tanks needed to be and extra capacity would be added in.

·         In respect of the re-allocation of £10,000 or £20,000 towards upgrading existing pavements; the condition of the footways had not been raised as an issue during consultations, it was not known if it would be possible to widen them and the developer could not be required to undertake repairs.  It would be difficult to argue that such a requirement would be reasonable and/or compliant with CIL.

·         A pedestrian crossing, if justified at this location, would cost in the region of £40,000 to £50,000.

 

The agent for the applicants addressed the Committee in support of the application:

 

·         The recommendation of the Assistant Director was welcomed.

·         The applicants had worked closely with the Local Planning Authority and the Environment Agency, since late 2015, to address all the technical issues.

·         Drainage/flood engineers had been investigating the position since November 2015.

·         The Environment Agency model had been updated and included evidence from recent flood events.

·         It had been demonstrated that the site was not within Flood Zone 3.

·         The Environment Agency agreed with the findings of the model and appropriate conditions had been agreed.

·         Floor levels would be set above the modelled water levels.

·         The outflow would be managed to ensure that there was no impact elsewhere.

·         The site had not flooded in December 2015.

·         The proposed access would be 65 metres to the south of the access to the supermarket site on the opposite side of the road.

·         A detailed Traffic Assessment had been undertaken which had demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact on the network.

·         A priority T junction would be provided.

·         Current information had been used in making the necessary calculations and the highway network would be operating well within capacity.

·         There would be a dedicated right turn lane into both the supermarket site and this site.

·         The free flow of traffic would be maintained.

·         The site to the north was allocated for housing.

·         This industrial site had been cleared for over four years; it had been marketed but had failed to attract any viable long term occupiers.

·         The development would contribute towards the district’s housing supply targets and would save greenfield sites.

·         Public consultation had been undertaken in April and of the respondents 68%  had either agreed or strongly agreed with the provision of new homes on the site.

·         When a previous proposal for the development of a supermarket on this site had been considered local residents had expressed the view that the land should be used for housing.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         There was a risk that if £10,000 was allocated for the provision of one bus shelter this may be done via the Section 106 obligation for another residential development and this money would then be lost ; if the £20,000 was allocated elsewhere then there was a risk that one bus shelter may not be provided if the other residential development did not go ahead.

·         The problem for Silsden was through traffic.

·         The schools were on the opposite side of the town centre.

·         A large part of the site already had an impermeable surface and it appeared that it was badly drained. The Drainage Engineers had explained the improvements that would be undertaken and had addressed concerns.

·         The Assistant Director’s explanation about the by-pass was accepted but there was a desperate need for this to be provided.

·         There was always a risk that developments would not go ahead and that improvements secured by Section 106 obligations would therefore not be achieved.

·         The footbridge was desperately needed on the grounds of road safety and to facilitate access to public transport; the funding should therefore be re-allocated to that project.

·         The Reserved Matters should be submitted to this Committee for consideration.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the application 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)            20% on-site affordable housing provision (2 and 3 bedroom units),

(ii)          The payment of a commuted sum of £265,299 for the improvement of educational infrastructure at primary level in Silsden,

(iii)         The payment of a commuted sum of £141,132 towards the enhancement of recreation facilities in Silsden; to be used towards the following priorities: (i) the provision of additional community facilities in Silsden to include bringing the existing structures in the park back into use and providing a new facility/flexible space for sports/meetings/changing rooms for those playing sports in the park; (ii) the retention of the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) next to the Youth Centre in Eliot Street or towards general recreational facilities in Silsden Park,

(iv)         The payment of a contribution of £20,000 to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats by bringing forward improvements on nearby footpath routes,

(v)          The payment of a contribution of £120,000 towards the provision of a footbridge to cross the A629.

(vi)         The safeguarding of the area of land adjacent to the proposed junction with Keighley Road, as shown hatched in red on Plan Reference: SIL-BWB-00-01-DR-TR-101 Rev P1, to provide for any improvements to the junction which may be required in future to facilitate access beyond the current application site,

(vii)       A Section 278 Agreement in respect of the delivery of necessary works on Keighley Road to facilitate access to the site,

 

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

 

(3)       That the application for Reserved Matters be submitted to this Committee for consideration.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor