The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report in relation to a full planning application for the extension of Keighley Industrial Park through the formation of eight structures housing nine commercial units (B8 and B2 uses), with associated car parking, highways connection, drainage and landscaping, on land to the north of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley – 17/05255/MAF (Document “AB”).

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 Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report in relation to a full planning application for the extension of Keighley Industrial Park through the formation of eight structures housing nine commercial units (B8 and B2 uses), with associated car parking, highways connection, drainage and landscaping, on land to the north of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley – 17/05255/MAF (Document “AB”). Various plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported the receipt of an additional representation, from the local Member of Parliament, since the publication of his written report.

He replied to questions as follows:

·         No discussion had taken place with the applicant prior to submission of the application.

·         The reference to Core Strategy Policy EC3 in his report concerned plans for the distribution of 30 hectares of new employment land in the Aire Valley Corridor. An Employment Land Review had been undertaken as part of the Core Strategy to determine how much would be needed over the life of the strategy.  There was no equivalent of the five year housing supply requirements for employment land.

·         An Inspector would be unlikely to support the development of any sites within the functional flood plain.

·         It was not possible to conclude, prior to the completion of the allocation process, that the target of 30 hectares could not be accommodated outside the flood plain.

·         There was a requirement for a Sequential Test in respect of development proposals on land at risk of flooding, to show that no other land was available with a lower risk, and an Exceptions Test and Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the development would not be at unacceptable risk of flooding, would not increase off-site flood risk and that the development would result in overriding sustainability benefits. There were no Sequential Test or Exceptions Test reports provided by the applicant in this case.

·         Although the applicant had submitted an assessment of land in Keighley and said that none could accommodate this development this information did not meet the requirements for a full Sequential Test.  Sites that could potentially be released from other designations had not been considered.

Representatives of the applicant put forward the following points:

·         The land had previously been designated as employment land but had been removed due to concerns about flooding.

·         A Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted which showed the mitigation measures proposed.  Yorkshire Water’s comments had been taken on board.

·         The site was adjacent to an existing large industrial estate.

·         The project would provide much needed economic development and would allow optimum use of this site.

·         A plan had been presented in respect of ecological enhancement.

·         The existing footpath could be re-directed and it was considered that this provision could be improved.

·         A split of B2 and B8 uses was proposed.

·         It was considered that there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application; the highway impacts were not severe; air quality would not be significantly affected; the site had good transport links; only nine objections had been received and eight representations made in support.

·         The site was within the Green Belt but this was a deliverable scheme that would have a positive impact in terms of a significant number of jobs during the construction process and the opportunity for the creation of over 300  jobs, including apprenticeships, post construction.

·         The development would provide improvements to the existing footpath network and would have a minimal impact on the Green Belt which would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

·         Having worked in Keighley for 25 years he was passionate about the area and considered this to be an excellent opportunity for the town.

·         Having acted as a commercial property agency and handled local industrial schemes his company was highly qualified to advise on the demand for such provision.

·         The proposed scheme offered a unique development opportunity with the impact of an investment of £50 to £60 million, a significant number of jobs and the ongoing payment of approximately £1.25 to £1.5 million per annum in business rates.

·         This was an unusual design and the Council had a chance to either embrace this opportunity or do nothing.

In response to Members’ questions the applicant’s agent stated that:

·         Each building would incorporate renewable energy measures and significant mitigation measures were proposed.

·         The footpath diversion would make access easier.

·         A large proportion of the site would be retained for ecological enhancement.

·         A comprehensive warning system would be put into place in respect of flooding that would give sufficient time for people and vehicles to be removed from the site.

·         He was unable to answer a question in respect of pollution escaping into the river in the case of a flood as he was not an expert on flooding issues.

·         If the application was approved conditions would be imposed that would require the implementation of measures to deal with flooding.

In terms of risk to the Council/local community the Assistant Director stated that the site was, at the present time, a designated functional flood plain. If development was approved and there was a flood then the Council’s decision may be open to challenge. If a development was undertaken within a floodplain and was not done in the correct manner there were relevant rules and regulations that would refer responsibility back to the landowner.

Members commented:

·         The Land Allocations Plan would not be produced for a further 3 years; this was a potential lost opportunity for Keighley.

·         Under riparian law a developer had a duty not to increase flood risk downstream and the liability related to this lay with the landowner.

·         Very special reasons were required to overcome the location within the Green Belt and a flood plain; there was not the same pressure for employment land as existed with housing.  Although the concept sounded interesting and exciting it was risky.

·         Although not fully convinced by the arguments put forward by the applicant it was considered that there was not enough information available to the Committee to allow refusal at this point.

·         A Sequential Test had not been undertaken in any great depth

·         It was contrary to Green Belt policy

·         The district could not afford to turn away this level of investment lightly.

·         The Authority needed to have a ‘can do’ attitude and to work with interested parties, to consider the possibilities and the economic benefits.  In an adjacent authority joint meetings took place with regeneration officers, planners and drainage engineers.

·         The application should be deferred for more information to be provided and for more detailed risk assessment.

·         The application as proposed was not acceptable but deferral was supported in order that more information could be provided in respect of how it might be achieved.

·         The Committee should determine the application before it; all aspects should have been addressed beforehand.

·         There were a number of issues to be responded to including the development of a unique building and information on any other such developments that may have taken place elsewhere; how the development would affect the flood plain; what mitigation measures were possible; the undertaking of an Exception Test; habitat issues and footpath enhancement; how the proposals for car parking would work; and discussion with the Regeneration Department.

It was noted that the responsibility for justifying the approval of an application lay with the applicants not the Local Planning Authority and that there was a need to respond to all the proposed reasons for refusal.

Resolved –

That consideration of the application be deferred to the meeting of the Committee to be held on 8 March 2018 and that the applicant be requested to submit further information to address the reasons for refusal set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report, with specific reference to:

(i)         An explanation of how the proposals for these unique buildings will not create flood risk issues, including examples of similar successful development elsewhere,

(ii)        What mitigation circumstances may apply,

(iii)       Consideration of any flood plain works being carried out elsewhere that may assist this development,

(iv)      A Sequential Test and an Exceptions Test in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),

(v)       Habitat mitigation measures,

(vi)      More detailed proposals for flood safe car parking provision,

(vii)     The regeneration and employment benefits of the scheme; to include dialogue with the Council’s Economic Development Department.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways