The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AM”) in respect of an outline planning application for residential development (all matters of detail reserved except access) of 100 market dwellings, 30 affordable sheltered dwellings and associated infrastructure and landscaping works on Land to the South of Goose Cote Lane, Keighley – 18/00214/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 Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AM”) in respect of an outline planning application for residential development (with all matters of detail reserved except access) of 100 market dwellings, 30 affordable sheltered dwellings and associated infrastructure and landscaping works on land to the south of Goose Cote Lane, Keighley – 18/00214/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Assistant Director explained that, further to negotiation with the applicant, the objection made by Highway Development Control, and thus the fifth proposed reason for refusal, had now been withdrawn.  The applicant had agreed to fund the necessary works to address the highway issues.

 

He reported on the receipt of a number of further representations, since the publication of his technical report, including an objection from a Shipley Ward Councillor.  There had now been a total of 185 objections to the proposed development and 8 representations expressing support.

 

He also reported on the substance of correspondence from the applicant’s agent, which raised issues in relation to the very special circumstances that he considered applied in this case and the proposed reasons for refusal. The Assistant Director responded to those issues as follows:

 

·         The contribution to the housing land supply in the district with a particular emphasis on affordable housing/specialist housing for older people was acknowledged but the need for additional housing had not been accepted as a very special reason to justify development in the Green Belt in the past and could set a precedent. Housing need and the provision of housing for older people could be met by other sites in and around the area. It was not appropriate to approve development on a piecemeal basis outside the Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) process and the associated Green Belt Review, which would allow all sites to be considered objectively and scored according to a number of criteria including sustainability. This site would meet the basic criteria in terms of sustainability but unless considered alongside all available sites the Local Planning Authority could not be sure that it was taking the best opportunity to permit development of sites in an appropriate and timely manner. There were other sites in the area that were better connected.

·         The Allocations DPD was progressing but not to a point whereby it could be afforded any weight in determining applications. The inclusion of this site in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was not relevant; the purpose of this document was to provide background information to inform the Core Strategy.

·         This was not an ‘infill’ site as two thirds of the boundary abutted open countryside.

·         It was accepted that the scheme may well be deliverable but no assessment had been submitted to confirm this assertion and this was not, in any case, a reason to override the Green Belt allocation.

·         The officer assessment had been that the development would harm the character of the landscape. It was accepted that the applicant had taken on board the comments made and tried to respond to the issues but the Landscape Architect’s view remained that the development would cause harm and have a detrimental impact.

·         Tourism was a relevant issue for consideration, as set out in the Core Strategy, and it was considered that the process would be flawed if the view of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway (KWVR) was not taken into account in this case, notwithstanding that it was not a statutory consultee.

·         Any mitigation measures undertaken would not provide any ecological benefits that could not be achieved on other sites.

·         Land stability was a relevant issue for consideration by the Local Planning Authority, as established by Core Strategy Policy EN8. The assessment submitted by the applicant stated that approximately 1.6 hectares in the centre of the site was indicated to comprise mass movement/slip material and suggested that some areas of the site were subject to ground instability.  It was therefore considered that there was a need for a full ground investigation survey. It was possible that there may be a need for substantial retaining structures and that the amount and layout of the development on the site may be affected by land stability issues; this information was therefore required at the stage of outline permission.

·         In terms of archaeological implications; the West Yorkshire Archaeological Advisory Service (WYAAS) had stated that this site was of particularly significant interest and had asked for a full evaluation.

 

He responded to questions from Members:

 

·         If the application was to be approved then it was considered that a Section 106 legal obligation would be required in order to secure the 30 affordable housing units (described as affordable sheltered dwellings)

·         The submitted layout was indicative at this point with just the points of access proposed to be established.

·         The process for the Allocations DPD would draw from existing databases of sites which would then be visited and scored on criteria including environmental value and sustainability. This site was listed in the SHLAA but the SHLAA was not a policy document.

·         WYAAS only became involved in sites where there was a strong potential interest. The Service became aware of applications through the planning application consultation process and it would also be consulted on the Allocations DPD.

·         Two entrances were proposed with an indication that one would serve 100 dwellings and one 30. The entrance for the 30 units would be just above the bend near to the listed building; this access road would not be adopted but would be deemed to be a private access. The entrance for the 100 dwellings would have to be fully adoptable.

·         The access/egress near to the bend was considered acceptable in this case; it would serve a limited number of units and the visibility was satisfactory.

·         It would be acceptable to have just one point of access for 130 units.

·         It was not clear from the application what the nature of the 30 units was; the agent may be able to provide some clarification.

 

A representative of objectors spoke in opposition to the application:

 

·         The applicant company was not registered at Companies House. It was questioned whether the Council had undertaken due diligence.

·         The applicant must have known the site was allocated as Green Belt at the time of purchase.

·         The key purpose of this site was as Green Belt; it was a very precious amenity providing breathing space between urban areas for all to enjoy.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) prohibited development on Green Belt unless there were very special circumstances; it was considered that none had been demonstrated in this case.  The arguments put forward were not site specific.

·         This was a mixed pasture area.

·         The planning officer’s report clearly set out the impact on views.

·         The Worth Way was used by a large number of people.

·         The Worth Way and the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway were important attractions with significant numbers of visitors.

·         Damems Station was very popular with tourists as it was the smallest in Britain; it was located only 300 metres away.

·         The site supported a lot of wildlife including deer and different species of bird. This development would cause irreparable damage to the area; the Council’s Landscape Architect shared this view.

·         This was not an ‘infill’ development nor was it a linear form of development. It would extend 200 metres into the Green Belt and would be a real eyesore.

 

A Ward Councillor from the adjoining ward (which abutted the site boundary) spoke against the proposed development:

 

·         The depth of feeling about this proposal was obvious; she had been contacted by over 80 households about the application.

·         There were five sites within the SHLAA in Keighley that could accept a development of this size; one of which was not in the Green Belt, was nearer to the Town Centre and had better transport links.  This development was inappropriate.

·         The Allocations DPD was a collaborative process and had not yet progressed to decision stage.

·         The SHLAA  just indicated what sites might be used, it was not for developers to pick out sites but was a matter for the Local Authority.

·         This development would be detrimental to the local community; schools and surgeries were oversubscribed.

·         There were concerns in respect of drainage and highway issues.

·         It was a two mile walk to the Town Centre and there was only one bus an hour.

·         In terms of the proposed affordable housing it should be noted that purchase of a static caravan required a specialist loan.

·         It was not believed that very special circumstances existed to change the Green Belt boundary; this must be protected.

 

In respect of the question about due diligence, the Assistant Director explained that the Local Planning Authority had received a valid planning application with a certificate of land ownership.  It was understood that this was a new company formed to submit this application.

 

He also stated that the SHLAA included a range of sites in and around Keighley some of which were in the Green Belt; this was an evidence base document to indicate the land potentially available to meet housing need, it was not a policy document.

 

A Ward Councillor put forward the following arguments in opposition to the proposals:

 

·         The majority of the residential properties directly affected by this proposal were situated within the adjacent ward.  Residents from both wards had objected to the proposed development.

·         The main issue of concern was the Green Belt allocation. The NPPF stated that there had to be very special circumstances or development was deemed inappropriate.

·         This scheme would harm the Green Belt with no mitigation provided.

·         This was not an ‘infill’ site but was an open area with no adjacent development to three sides.

·         The site had only changed into scrubland since being purchased by the applicant.

·         It was considered that there was no shortage of sites that could accommodate 130 properties; there were five within the SHLAA that would not involve the use of Green Belt.

·         Goose Cote Lane was narrow and was used as a rat-run; additional traffic would cause congestion and access issues.

·         It was a two mile walk to Keighley and there was only one bus an hour.

·         The site was adjacent to the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway; there would be an impact on openness and a potential impact on tourism; the KWVR had objected.

·         The site was adjacent to a Grade II listed property and the development would affect its semi rural setting.

·         The site had significant archaeological potential.

·         The area was known as ‘Bogthorn’ and there were issues with surface water. Developments in the vicinity had experienced problems and the development of this land could exacerbate these issues.

·         The local primary school was full in most year groups and the local secondary school had no room to expand.

·         The applicant had said that the 30 units were to be affordable homes; it was not considered that static caravans were suitable for young families.

·         The development would have a detrimental impact on the local community and the Committee was asked to take into account all the comments made.

 

The Assistant Director answered further questions from Members:

 

·         The Lead Local Flood Authority was aware of the nature of this area and potential issues with springs. It had no objections to the proposals for dealing with surface water. If the site was developed a positive drainage system would control the surface water.

·         This site did not have any different issues in terms of drainage to any others in Keighley; it was a steep site but a positive scheme would control surface water and could improve drainage in the locality.

 

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

 

·         In terms of the affordable housing provision the concept was of facilitating downsizing in retirement age to a static caravan. Such schemes allowed the release of capital for older people and were becoming more common in the UK. This application was in outline and the provision could be secured by Section 106 planning obligation.

·         If the Housing Department wanted the affordable units to be in a different form the applicant would be open to discussion.

·         He had worked with archaeological services for over 10 years on various developments and considered that what had been suggested was fairly standard. He was not aware of any developments that had been delayed up because of this requirement. If outline permission was granted a geo-technical survey would be undertaken.

·         The SHLAA was based on sites with planning permission; those where development had started; or those sites previously allocated.  Keighley was expected to provide 4,500 homes by 2030.

·         The Green Belt was so tightly drawn that it was considered inevitable that some development sites would be within it. The Allocations DPD could take a number of years to finalise. The Council could consider the development of sites such as this with affordable housing. This site was viable and deliverable.

·         A Phase 1 assessment had been undertaken in terms of land stability. Environmental Health had not objected to the proposals and a standard Phase 2 condition requiring a more intrusive survey could be imposed.  Soil nailing techniques had been used on other sites.

·         The application addressed all the issues in respect of heritage, education and flooding impact.

·         The impact on tourism had only arisen from the KWVR’s comments and was not considered to be a material planning reason. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) had been provided. Further comments on this issue had not been included in the officer’s report. The reason for refusal on this ground had not originated from the Landscape Officer but from the KWVR. No objections had been made by statutory consultees. It was considered that the issue came down to the opinion of officers and the impact on the Green Belt.

·         The LVIA had concluded that the development was acceptable. The Landscape Architect had said that the methodology used in the production of this document was acceptable.

·         It was believed that very special circumstances had been demonstrated by the contribution to housing supply, the provision of affordable housing for older people and inclusion in the Allocations DPD.

·         There were bus stops on Goose Cote Lane and the site was within walking distance of  facilities. The development would be beneficial to the local economy; it was instantly deliverable. There would be a need to release Green Belt land to meet housing need.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         the normal affordable housing requirement for this area would be 20% so the provision suggested by the agent would only exceed this by 4 units.

·         WYAAS had been clear that there was significant potential archaeological interest in the site and that; subject to the findings of the required archaeological assessment it may recommend refusal or amendment on archaeological grounds; this was why the assessment was needed prior to determination.

·         The SHLAA was purely an evidential document and inclusion of a site within it carried no weight.

·         There was a need for new housing but there were a number of available sites and without a comparative assessment it could not be determined where development was most appropriate and the implications for the Green Belt.

·         It was not considered to be unusual or onerous to require the submission of a proper assessment in respect of ground stability prior to determination.

·         The conclusions in terms of the impact on tourism and landscape were based on the relevant policies not the views of an individual consultee.

 

Members expressed the following views:

 

·         There were a number of concerns with the proposals; the apparent segregated area for the affordable units; the access near to a bad bend; and the use of Green Belt land.  One access point would be preferable.

·         The concept of an American style ‘trailer park’ and/or the use of these units as affordable housing provision was not acceptable.

·         The site was within the Green Belt and it was not accepted that very special circumstances had been proven.

·         The need for new housing applied to all sites within the Green Belt.  The allocation process should be completed first so that the use of these sites was done in a planned rather than an ad hoc manner. The officer’s recommendations were supported.

·         The proposed access point, near to the bend, was unacceptable, particularly if this was the entrance for the housing for older people.

·         Proper dwellings would be more appropriate for older people. There was a lack of bungalows for this age range.

·         There would be a need to use Green Belt land at some point due to the demands being placed on the Local Authority to facilitate new housing development.

·         This site used to be grazing land but had deteriorated.

·         There were potential issues with land stability.

·         There were already issues with lack of places at the local school.

·         No very special circumstances over and above any other site in the area had been put forward. Land stability was a significant concern and the position in respect of the 30 additional units was unclear. The proposed access close to the bend was not acceptable and a single point of access with a more diverse spread of the units would be more acceptable; segregation was unacceptable and there was a need for the provision of proper affordable housing.

 

The Assistant Director noted that the layout was purely indicative at this point; if the application proceeded to Reserved Matters stage a detailed layout would be submitted and officers would require an integrated layout. He was not aware of static caravans having been accepted as affordable housing previously. In addition affordable housing would usually be ‘pepperpotted’ throughout a site rather than concentrated in one location.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report with the exception of Reason 5.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways