The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) considers an outline planning application for up to 40 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site on land at Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00497/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)

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) considered an outline planning application for up to 40 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site, on land at Bradford Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 17/00497/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.

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

·         This site was along the road from the previous application.  There were still double white lines at this point and there were speed awareness signs.

·         Endor Crescent had a narrow entrance which meant that vehicles turning into it had to slow right down on the main road and move out towards the centre of the carriageway.

·         There were already a number of junctions/access points onto the A65 in this locality.

·         It was not considered that the development of the site as proposed would be appropriate and the recommendation for refusal was supported; the other Ward Councillors also supported refusal.

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application:

·         This land was owned by the same family as the preceding application and the same points were pertinent to its consideration.

·         There were no technical reasons to refuse the application.

·         There was an acute need for new housing.

·         There was a need for a choice/mix of sites.

·         This site could be delivered imminently.

·         There would be a limited impact on the Green Belt.

·         The density appeared low as a result of the inclusion of the allotments. Many meetings had been held with the Parish Council in respect of the delivery of the Neighbourhood Plan and there had been considerable interest in the retention of the allotments.  If the development went ahead as proposed this area of land would be gifted to the Parish Council as a social infrastructure gain. It should not therefore be included in the calculation for the density of development.

·         The landowner and his family had lived in Burley in Wharfedale for many years and cared about the village.

·         The Parish Council wished to provide a mix of sites in different localities and with social infrastructure improvements.

·         All sites would contribute towards the chronic five year housing supply deficit.

The Assistant Director said that:

·         The allotments had not been included in the description of the development although they were shown in the indicative layout.  If the application was approved as presented a different layout could then be submitted with the proposed dwellings more widely spread out across the whole site.

·         In terms of the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan; it was deemed to be emerging policy and could be taken into account.  The Neighbourhood Plan did refer to allotment provision and inferred that the Parish Council supported the principle of additional facilities but consideration was needed in respect of whether this was appropriate in the location proposed.  Even if it was considered to be so this would not be sufficient to warrant a grant of consent in the circumstances of this case.

·         At one stage the Parish Council had been hoping that small sites could be used to meet the target for new housing but the target had been lower at that point.  The Inspector had recognised that there was a need for large sites to be utilised.

A Member commented that the possibility of urban sprawl on this side of the A65 was of concern.

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