A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AD”) in relation to a outline application for the construction of a residential development scheme comprising up to 15 dwellings with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land to the east of Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00496/MAO.

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)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AD”) in relation to a outline application for the construction of a residential development scheme comprising up to 15 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land to the east of Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00496/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.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee he stated that the adjacent site was not within the blue edged boundary and was not in the same ownership. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be in the region of £120,000 to £150,000 dependent on the level of floorspace constructed.

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

·         He concurred with the officer’s recommendation.

·         The A65 was a clearly defined boundary between Burley and Otley; this development would be a clear encroachment onto the land separating these settlements.

·         Any existing properties on the same side of the road as this site had been constructed prior to the introduction of planning legislation.

·         There were double white lines along the length of the A65 to Sandholme Drive.

·         This section of the A65 was very congested and also suffered with speeding traffic.

·         The proposed access would be between Sandholme Drive and Menston Old Lane; there was already a church, a village hall and a petrol station accessed off this section of the A65 together with various junctions; it was far from ideal for a housing development.

The applicant’s agent put forward the following arguments in support of the application:

·         The applicant had worked closely with the Parish Council on its Neighbourhood Plan for a two year period with the aim of achieving its preferences for the location of new housing. Local residents and the Parish Council considered that the size and scale of the proposed development at Sun Lane was not appropriate.

·         The Parish Council had envisaged a range of sites satisfying the requirement for new houses.

·         It had been acknowledged that a contribution to the delivery of the housing target for Burley may be required from this site.

·         It was considered that there were no technical reasons to refuse the application.

·         The scheme would provide much needed homes and support social and economic infrastructure. There was an acute shortage of homes in the district; this scheme would make a contribution and support one of its Local Growth Centres.

·         The deficit in the five year supply was recognised in the officer’s report. The Core Strategy recognised that the Green Belt needed to change.

·         This development would bring about an immediate social infrastructure improvement; whereas a large scale scheme could take years to realise.

·         Affordable housing and CIL funds would be provided.

·         It was important that there was a choice and a mix of sites in order to build a balanced community and to diffuse the traffic implications.

·         This site was within walking distance of the station.

·         The development would have a minimal effect upon the Green Belt.

·         Further Green Belt sites would need to be developed to accommodate the target of 700 dwellings.

The Assistant Director clarified that:

·         Significant weight was given to the shortage of housing, which was acute, but this scheme would make a relatively small contribution, although it was accepted that sometimes small sites could be developed more quickly.

·         In terms of the argument about the need for a choice and mix of sites, a range of sites was set out in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) and five sites in the area either had permission or were already developed. The Sun Lane site was not the only other option.

·         Although small sites may not appear to have as much impact on the Green Belt not all Green Belt sites were the same; some would be in a more sensitive location or may have a greater propensity to set a precedent or encourage further sprawl; the A65 had been defined as a strong defensible edge to the Green Belt.

Members commented that:

·         The development of this site would not look out of place.

·         It was a relatively small site and there were houses along this side of the A65.

·         There had to be strong reasons to give up Green Belt land and there were no such reasons in this case.

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways