Previous reference: Minute 51 (2016/17)

 

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AR”) in relation to an application for outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of up to 142 dwellings on Land at the Former Riverside Works, Keighley Road, Silsden – 16/03804/MAO.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the application 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 Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)            Payment of a contribution of £348,439 for the provision of off-site affordable housing in Craven Ward, or an adjacent ward,

(ii)          The safeguarding of the land shown hatched in red on plan SIL-BWB-00-01-DR-TR-101 Rev P1,adjacent to the proposed junction with Keighley Road, to provide for any improvements to the junction which may be required in future to facilitate access beyond the current application site,

(iii)         Entering into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of related off-site highway works,

 

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

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Previous reference:Minute 51 (2016/17)

 

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AR”) in relation to an application for outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of up to 142 dwellings on Land at the Former Riverside Works, Keighley Road, Silsden – 16/03804/MAO.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of 5 additional representations received in objection to the application.  He also explained that since the original resolution to grant outline planning permission in October 2016 a financial viability report had been submitted on behalf of the applicant which indicated that the development was not viable with the payment of CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and the affordable housing provision.  An independent review of this report by valuers acting on behalf of the Council had concluded that the development was capable of contributing £348,439, together with the relevant CIL payment, and it was recommended that this be used for the provision of affordable housing within this or the adjacent wards.

 

In response to a Member’s question he said that he understood that there was a proposal that the existing primary schools in Silsden may merge and that this would facilitate future expansion.

 

A Town Councillor tabled photographs to illustrate his points and outlined the following concerns:

 

·         Significant flooding had occurred in December 2015 in the vicinity of this site.

·         Neighbours had implemented measures to try and keep flood water out of their properties. The photographs showed the flooding and the land levels and how they dropped away from the site. It was considered that the development of housing on this site and the surrounding land would exacerbate the flooding issues.

·         The proposals by the developer for 300mm floor levels would not be sufficient to protect new housing from flooding.

·         The culvert had backed up resulting in damage to a concrete bridge and walling and causing flooding to the main Silsden road.

·         It was questioned why a second culvert had not been installed; this issue had been raised previously.

·         The issues with broken and blocked drains should be addressed.

 

Another Town Councillor questioned why the scheme had now become unviable as land values and house prices had risen since July 2017. Also why had the Section 106 legal obligation associated with the application not been signed? It appeared opportunistic and it was queried whether this would have happened had CIL not been introduced.

 

The Assistant Director explained that the outline planning application had been submitted by a development company; this was not unusual. This company had not intended to undertake the development of the site and had believed that the Section 106 contributions could be supported. A national house builder had become involved, further to the determination of the outline application, which had led to a more accurate assessment of costs being undertaken and it had been established that there were additional development costs above the level that would normally be the case and the level which was factored into CIL calculations.  The Council’s independent consultants had considered the viability issues and robustly challenged the submission.

 

In respect of drainage he explained that:

 

·         A detailed strategy was being developed to improve the situation with Silsden Beck and to make it more resilient to flooding.

·         It was likely that when the beck flooded in December 2015 the water had been forced in the wrong direction.

·         The applicant had provided a hydraulic model of Silsden Beck and this had been approved by the Environment Agency, the site was agreed to be partly in Flood Zone 1 and part in Flood Zone 2.

·         A Flood Risk Assessment, including appropriate mitigation measures, had been considered in the determination of the outline application.

·         There were two relevant bespoke conditions (4 and 5) proposed to be imposed on this application. Condition 7 would also ensure future management of the system.

 

An objector made the following comments:

 

·         With reference to the viability; the Council’s Brownfield Register indicated the provision of between 139 and 169 dwellings on this site. It could therefore be anticipated that a future application would be made for an increase in the number of houses.

·         This site was only suitable for 150 houses due to the access.

·         The development would give the opportunity for the land to the rear to be developed.

·         CIL should roughly equal the Section 106 contributions of £526,000 plus 20% affordable housing provision, this proposal fell short by £226,000.

·         It had been proven that flooding occurred on the site.

·         Flooding had been caused by works being undertaken on the site; an earth mound had been created, which adversely affected neighbours’ property.

·         Core Strategy Policy EN7 required the Council to manage flood risk proactively and stated that development would only be acceptable where it did not increase flood risk elsewhere; it was believed that this development could do so.

·         A request had been made that the proceeds of the sale of the ransom strip should be ringfenced for Silsden.

·         The local Neighbourhood Plan was at an advanced stage and a decision on this site should therefore be delayed.

·         There was a need for £45 million for local  infrastructure.

·         All the drainage issues needed to be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.

·         The culvert constrained drainage and alternatives to the use of Silsden Beck should be explored.

·         The original Section 106 obligations should be honoured.

·         There should be a re-appraisal of all hazards on the site.

·         Silsden needed investment into its infrastructure.

 

A local resident said that:

 

·         He had lived in nearby cottages with no problems for a significant period of time but there were now issues with sewage backing up and flooding. He had been forced to get rid of his downstairs toilet.

·         A mound of earth had been placed on the site which had contributed to the flooding of his property.

·         It was considered that a holistic approach should be taken to the beck.

 

In response, the Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The applicant had given the Local Planning Authority assurances that no drains had been diverted and the Lead Local Flood Authority did not believe that demolition works had been a contributory cause of the flooding.

·         The Environment Agency had included the model for this site within its plans for works to Silsden Beck.

·         There was no ‘ransom strip’ as such, the Council owned this strip of land and this was not an issue for consideration by this Committee.

·         The land to the rear of this site was allocated for residential development and provision for a satisfactory access therefore had to be included within the current scheme.

·         He was satisfied that the viability appraisal was robust. Independent consultants had also worked on the Council’s CIL testing.

·         The Environment Agency had made no further comment and had not objected.

 

Members’ views were expressed as follows:

 

·         Clear advice had been received from the experts.

·         The area in the Green Belt was not to be developed.

·         The Reserved Matters should be submitted to the Committee for determination.

·         This was a brownfield site; the issues in respect of flooding in the area were known and appreciated. A lot of work had been undertaken to Silsden Beck and it was also hoped that the work undertaken in North Yorkshire would help alleviate issues in the future.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the application 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 Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)            Payment of a contribution of £348,439 for the provision of off-site affordable housing in Craven Ward, or an adjacent ward,

(ii)          The safeguarding of the land shown hatched in red on plan SIL-BWB-00-01-DR-TR-101 Rev P1,adjacent to the proposed junction with Keighley Road, to provide for any improvements to the junction which may be required in future to facilitate access beyond the current application site,

(iii)         Entering into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of related off-site highway works,

 

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

 

(3)       That the Reserved Matters Application be submitted to this Committee for determination.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways