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 sum to be payable on occupation of the 1^st unit.

(f)   £320,000 towards a scheme of wider improvements to the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction, as shown on Plan 13-215-TR-024. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 301^st unit.

(g)  £75,000 per annum to fund improving, re-routing and increasing the frequency of the 962 bus service (or any equivalent replacement facility) for a period of five years (£375,000); in order to provide a regular public transport link between the site, Burley Rail Station and the remainder of the settlement. This sum to be payable to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority in five equal annualised payments with the first payment being made upon substantial completion of the internal estate road,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274434380)

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 an absolute requirement to build a primary school.  The application acknowledged, that due to the scale of building proposed, there would be a need for a school and made provision for it to be located within the site.  There were a number of ways in which this could be delivered in the future and it was noted that it was in the developer’s interest for there to be sufficient educational provision in the area.

·         In respect of  questions that had been raised in respect of the level of the targets for new housing set by the Core Strategy, it was explained that the Council had prepared its development plan in light of national policy and in accordance with the methodologies put forward by Central Government.  The Core Strategy had been considered by an Inspector and found to be both sound and robust, Since the adoption of the Core Strategy the Government had undertaken consultation on changes to how the assessment of future housing need was carried out but the conclusions of this review were only in draft and there would be no final changes until late Summer 2019 at the earliest. At this stage there were a number of alternative methods to assess future need some of which would produce lower figures and others potentially higher figures.  The Government had been clear that Local Planning Authorities should not scrap their plans.  If contained within an adopted Local Plan, an Authority could rely on its targets for a period of five years so there was no requirement for the Council to revisit its assessment of future housing need at this point.  Even if the targets were re-assessed it was not possible to predict whether or not this would lead to a reduction for the figures for Burley, or any other part of the district; there were a lot of issues/evidence that would need to be taken into consideration.

·         The provision of a school had been discussed with the applicant. There would usually be two costs associated with such a scheme the first being the cost of the necessary land and the second being the cost to build the structure.  The Council could not build a new school itself as there was no legal mechanism by which it could do so.

·         The Council could consider the expansion of existing schools.

·         It was proposed that a Phasing Plan would be submitted by the applicant and this would have to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

·         It was understood that the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) was investigating the potential for the expansion of car parking for all railway stations, although Burley did not lend itself to easy expansion. Car parking was one of the issues that had been raised by the Neighbourhood Plan and could perhaps be addressed through the use of CIL monies.

·         The applicant had agreed to seek to encourage the use of public transport by new residents by funding the expansion of the existing bus service to serve the site which would facilitate access to the railway station.  The Local Planning Authority could only ask the developer to make all reasonable efforts to promote the use of public transport.

·         It was believed that the houses on Wellfield Lane had been built within approximately the last 20 years.

 

The Ward Councillors were in attendance at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         If the application was approved, consideration should be given to accelerating the payment of the Section 106 contributions to earlier stages of the development; it was considered that payment at the point of occupation of 150 and 200 units would be more appropriate.

·         The Green Belt was a successful tool in preventing urban sprawl and would normally be reviewed as part of an overall plan not in response to a planning application.

·         A letter from the Secretary of State (for Communities and Local Government) addressed to the Leader of Council in March 2017 had stated that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances or when site allocation plans were prepared.

·         The local Area Planning Panel had recently refused permission for the building of two houses quite close to this site on the grounds that they would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, approval for 500 houses was also considered to be inappropriate.

·         The growth of settlement in Wharfedale was leading to encroachment along the A65 in an elongated narrow shape.

·         There would be a significant impact on the character of the Special Landscape Area which had many visitors.

·         The application should be refused and the Green Belt protected.

·         Officers had argued that the shortfall in land supply should be given significant weight but considerable weight was also to be placed on the protection of the Green Belt.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) said that local authorities  should regard the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate  unless there were very special circumstances and that very special circumstances would not be considered to exist unless the potential harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations.  The Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) also stated that it should not be permitted except in very special circumstances or for a small number of defined uses.

·         Burley had a clearly defined edge in Sun Lane. This development would reduce the gap to Ben Rhydding; officers’ assertion that this would not increase the potential for the villages to merge was not accepted.

·         The Green Belt existed to safeguard the countryside from encroachment and officers had suggested that mitigation could be provided by landscaping and open spaces but the application was contrary to Paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

·         Burley – in Wharfedale was not a town, it was a historic village that had been in existence since the 1700s; it had many visitors due to its historic and unique nature.

·         The NPPF stated that housing need was not likely to be accepted as outweighing the harm to the Green Belt.

·         This development would not provide the affordable housing necessary for those in urban areas.

·         It was suggested that approval of this application was the only solution. There were very limited options for development in the village but this did not justify a development that would be detrimental for local residents; no deal was better than a bad deal.

·         There were issues with Education provision.

·         The existence of the Roman Camp had previously been unknown and development may damage this valuable find.

·         The village already had significant resources in terms of recreation and open space.

·         It was considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that there were very special circumstances and the application should be refused.

·         The same issues affected the village now as in 2012 when first elected to the Council, these included the lack of parking at the station, overcrowded trains and a shortfall in school places.

·         Permission had already been granted, or building taken place, of 200 houses, since 2012, with no infrastructure support.

·         Burley was congested and there were difficulties in accessing facilities due to the lack of parking particularly for elderly or disabled residents.

·         The parking situation at the station was very difficult; there was a clash with school traffic.

·         The proposal for an extended bus service once most of the houses were constructed was insufficient; people would not walk that distance in the meantime.

·         The trains were already standing room only and there was a lot of pressure on the surrounding roads, including the A65.

·         The suggestion that there may be improvements to the rail network was of concern as, at a WYCA Transport Committee meeting in 2017, a Railtrack representative had stated that there were no plans to improve the Wharfedale line or to extend platforms to allow an increase in carriages as there was no funding available for such works.

·         The pressure on secondary school places was of great concern; only a limited amount of expansion would be possible at Ilkley Grammar School; it was already being expanded to cope with the existing population.

·         There would be a lot of problems before a school could be built.

·         This application was the first of many to meet the targets in the Core Strategy for this locality. There would also be applications for sites within the Leeds district that would put pressure on its schools.

·         It was considered that there was a real possibility of the catchment of Ilkley Grammar School shrinking so that it would no longer include Burley, where would those children then go?

·         It was believed that there was sufficient evidence to show that the proposal was unacceptable, the disruption to residents lives made it unsustainable; it would affect the health and wellbeing of local people.

·         The very small amount of CIL funding would not do much to help.  Where money was spent needed to be carefully considered in order to support communities.

 

The Assistant Director clarified that:

 

·         The recent refusal by the Area Planning Panel had been due to there being no very special circumstances to justify the development in the Green Belt.

·         If the Committee was minded to approve the application it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for him to decide if he wished to call it in for scrutiny.

·         In planning for the future the Education Department took account of all existing people in the system and data on births they also looked at projections for migration and committed residential development.

·         If the Parish Council was allocated 25% of the CIL monies associated with this site (if it ultimately adopted a Neighbourhood Plan) this would not be an insignificant amount; it could be circa £1 million.

 

A local resident spoke in objection to the application:

 

·         The Local Plan was at a critical stage.

·         The Land Allocations Plan was expected by the middle of 2018.

·         It was considered that determination of the application at this stage would discredit the local planning process and deny local people the chance to comment on the proposed sites through the allocations process. It was not appropriate to approve a site wholly within the Green Belt at this point, it was premature and would undermine confidence in the local planning system.

·         The review of the Green Belt was already underway and was a key part of the Land Allocations Plan.

·         The adverse impact of this proposal far outweighed the benefits and it was considered that there was a strong case for refusal on the grounds of prematurity. The NPPF allowed this where ‘the development proposed was so substantial or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or neighbourhood planning or (b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area’.

·         This site was the largest ‘cherry on the cake’ in terms of housing sites in the district and to deal with it outside the local planning framework to the gain of an impatient developer was considered to be wrong.

 

The Assistant Director said that his argument in respect of prematurity was set out in his technical report and he stood by this view.

 

The applicant spoke in support of the application:

 

·         The Assistant Director’s report was very comprehensive and recommended approval of the application.

·         This application resulted from extensive engagement over a four year period with the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the Parish Council and other stakeholders.

·         The LPA had pushed for a well designed and genuinely sustainable scheme.

·         The Council’s Core Strategy had been adopted in 2017 and this application was fully consistent with that document. The Strategy required the provision of 700 new dwellings in Burley and this target had been endorsed by the Inspector on the basis of the availability of this site.

·         The Parish Council had not objected to the application.

·         There had been extensive public consultation and all the relevant technical issues had been examined and addressed.  There were no objections from the statutory consultees.

·         The scheme would provide significant benefits for the community with 30% affordable housing provision and infrastructure improvements including a new school, allotments, open space, landscaping and bio diversity enhancement. It would also include almost £1 million in highway and transport improvements including the extension to the bus service.

·         The Roman Camp (which had previously been undiscovered) had been embraced and incorporated into the development.  This was a special opportunity and Historic England was excited by the proposed approach.

·         Benefits to existing residents and the local community would be secured by 45 conditions and a Section 106 planning obligation.  The development would generate £4 million CIL, £3 million in New Homes Bonus and additional revenue for the Council from Council Tax.

·         It was believed that very special circumstances existed and the proposal accorded with both local and national policy.

 

He responded to Member’s questions:

 

·         The applicant’s initial preference had been for the delivery of a school, with the land being gifted to the Council. The CIL contribution of £4 million would cover the build cost.

·         The Authority’s approach was to ensure that maximum flexibility was retained and the Section 106 obligation did not therefore preclude any option in terms of the provision of the school. How and when the school was delivered would be discussed with the Council as the scheme moved forward.

·         Under the terms of the planning permission as proposed, it would not be possible to build anything other than a school on that part of the site.

·         A commitment had been made to subsidise the existing Ilkley to Otley bus service to provide a half hourly service to Burley Railway Station to co-ordinate with the train timetable. There may also be the possibility of the A84/A85 bus service to Leeds being diverted to run through the site. At this time no commitment had been made to improve public transport services to Bradford.

·         There was a fine balance in terms of when the bus service connection to/through the development commenced; it needed to be early enough to try to influence the travelling habits of the new residents but not so early that it came to an end before becoming successfully utilised and viable. Once the main spine road was built this could be progressed.

·         In terms of impact on the special character of Burley in Wharfedale and cohesion; this would be determined by the detailed design of the scheme. He personally knew the village very well and the legacy of its development sites was very important to the applicant. It was important that the details were right and the selection of house builder was considered to be a key issue in this respect. The aspiration was to provide a unique and very high quality development.

·         It was anticipated that the scheme would provide detached and semi detached family housing, in a range of sizes, in a suitable mix for the area, subject to the market conditions. There would also be 30% affordable housing for local people.

 

The Assistant Director noted that the bus service to the railway station would also facilitate travel to Bradford or Keighley by train.

 

In response to a further question from a Member, the Assistant Director and Interim City Solicitor confirmed that it was possible for a Section 106 obligation to define a priority order in terms of those entitled to access the affordable housing. 

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         An overlay plan to indicate the flood risk zones in relation to the proposed built development would be useful once the layout became more formalised.

·         It was important to give consideration to integrating links to Bradford and Keighley.

·         More reassurance was needed in respect of the provision of the associated school.

·         It was accepted that there was a need for more housing but this proposal would mean giving up Green Belt and this should only be done with significant care. The ‘very special reasons’ given were not wholly convincing; the reasons needed to be very strong but the lack of clarity in respect of the proposed school was of concern.

·         There would be an impact on the nearest railway stations.

·         A referendum was to take place on the Neighbourhood Plan in May (subject to approval by the Executive).  It was too early to agree to approval at this point.

·         The lack of a concrete plan for the school was a concern.

·         It was agreed that a substantial scheme was a better approach than piecemeal development but the provision of the school was a very important factor and there were risks that it would not happen due to events outside the control of the Council and the developer. This affected the weight that could be afforded to the benefits of the proposal.

Resolved –

 

(1)       That consideration of the application be deferred until a local referendum on the Burley Neighbourhood Plan has taken place in May 2018; this being subject to the prior approval of the Executive, or, if approval is not given to the undertaking of the referendum in May that it be re-submitted to the next appropriate meeting of this Committee.

 

(2)       That the applicant be requested to provide a more defined strategy to show how a school can be delivered on the site, including consideration of how this will fit within the overall phasing of the development.

 

ACTION:       City Solicitor