The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AJ”) in relation to a full planning application for the extension of Keighley Industrial Park through the formation of eight structures housing nine commercial units (B8 and B2 uses), with associated car parking, highways connection, drainage and landscaping, on land to the north of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley – 17/05255/MAF.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reminded Members that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 7 December 2017 in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit further information and full determination of the proposal was now required.  He explained that the application was for the construction of nine commercial units with associated car parking on a site that was within a flood zone area, the Green Belt and partly designated as a wildlife area.  It was noted that access would be gained through the existing industrial development and this was at a higher level than the proposed site.  The officer’s report detailed the reasons for deferral and the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the application had been re-advertised as it was subject to amendments.  As a consequence further objections had been received and many were from people that had previously submitted representations.  Members were informed that the Council’s Rights of Way Team had initially raised concerns, however, the footpaths could be amended and this was no longer a reason for refusal.  The site was located in designated Green Belt and was subject to national and local planning policies, therefore, the Committee would need to conclude that there were very special circumstances to warrant approval of the scheme.  The applicant’s case indicated that there was a shortage of employment units in the area and the proposal would meet the demand.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the site had been designated as employment but this had been removed on the advice of the Environment Agency in light of flood zone mapping that had been undertaken during the early 2000s.  He explained that it was a flood risk site and was meant to flood in order to relieve pressure.  In relation to the sequential approach, the site covered 10 hectares, which would provide a third of the future employment area for Airedale and assessments had been undertaken in order to identify the likely need for extra employment sites in the area.  The Council had looked at sites and acknowledged that 10 hectares was a substantial area, however, it needed to consider the entire District and there were two sites approved for residential and employment use in Silsden.  The applicant had disagreed with the Council stating that there was a need for units in the Keighley area. 

 

Concerns had been raised by the Council’s Principle Drainage Engineer in relation to the operation of the site and the applicant had proposed to raise the buildings on stilts, as part of the site would flood.  The scheme indicated that it would be resilient to flooding as water would be allowed to run underneath the buildings and the applicant would create additional flood areas to replace those that would be used for the stilts.  The buildings would also be designed to be operational from raised platforms.  Additional car parking facilities protected from flooding would be provided and the standards required could be achieved.  Members were informed that the key issues related to the workability, proving that the site would flood in a particular way and if there were sufficient water storage areas on the site.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that considerable dialogue had been undertaken with the applicant in respect of air quality and as a result they had submitted a low emissions strategy.  The Council’s Environmental Health Team had noted that there would be some increases in the impact on air quality and there was a residential area nearby, which had a monitoring station, therefore, they believed that the proposal would be undesirable in the area.  Members were informed that the Council usually sought to have mitigation measures placed on such applications via conditions and the submission of an air quality strategy would ordinarily be required.

 

In conclusion the application was recommended for refusal as per the reasons stated in the officer’s report.          

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways clarified that:

 

·         The four sites quoted in the officer’s report had not been assessed by the applicant, who had stated that there were no other sites of 10 hectares.  The closest site in size was at Crossflatts.

·         The sites quoted were similar in size and suggested by the Council’s Policy Team, who had stated that the District as a whole should be considered.

·         The site on Banklands Avenue East at Silsden was considerable, but constrained by the Silsden by-pass.

·         The majority of representations had been submitted from the opposite side of the valley.

·         Inappropriate development should not be built in the Green Belt and there was no suggestion that the proposal was appropriate.  The applicant had stated that the very special circumstances were warranted by the need for employment use in Keighley.

·         The applicant had indicated that they were not aware of other sites that could accommodate the development, however, there were others in the District and smaller ones in Keighley.

·         The cornerstone of the National Planning Policy Framework was that planning should not stand in the way of prosperity.  It was a very important and positive policy which indicated that planning permission should be granted on suitable sites, however, there were other policies that had to be considered in conjunction. 

·         The site had been allocated as employment, however, the Environment Agency had strongly objected to the classification due to the flood risk and on advice of the consultees the site had been removed from the allocation.  The site had not been in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan when it had been adopted and had been placed in the Green Belt.  The Council had sent documentation to the Secretary of State in respect of policies that required to be saved and those that did not.  All the allocations, the Green Belt, land for employment and the policies that supported these allocations had been saved.

·         It was the Council’s policy that an Air Quality Strategy was submitted and mitigating measures were included in the application.

 

The Council’s Senior Development Officer, Economy and Development Services informed Members that the service worked with companies that were looking to expand and many of them wanted to locate in Keighley.  He explained that there was a requirement for additional employment space in Keighley and work was ongoing on sites in the area.  There was also a need for approximately 30 hectares of land in Airedale.  The timescale of the development would have to be considered along with the demand for space in the market.  The Senior Development Officer stated that the scheme covered a large volume of space, however, he questioned whether the proposal submitted would provide for the need in the area.

 

The Council’s Principle Drainage Engineer confirmed that there were two parts to the Exceptions Test and these should show substantial benefits to residential and flood risk areas.  He informed Members that there were concerns as to how the site would flood if the development was undertaken and if it would be as depicted.  When a large site was developed there was a restriction on the surplus surface water, however, the flood risk assessment detailed a large amount of water would need to be stored.  In conclusion the Principle Drainage Engineer stated that there was insufficient evidence to support the reasoning that the issues could be overcome.

 

In response to further questions, Members were informed that:

 

·         The intention of the scheme was to have storage pipes under the access road to allow the flow of water across the site, however, this action still could not satisfy that the flood water would be mitigated.

·         The pilot study in North Yorkshire was looking at water levels and the Council was considering the project on order to ascertain whether further measures could be introduced regarding flood levels, however, this would not take place for a number of years.

·         The site had last flooded in 2003 and in order to assess a flood plain correctly it had to be done hydraulically.

·         Flood mapping detailed a snapshot in time and Leeds City Council had been updating its River Aire model.  In relation to planning, the Environment Agency undertook flood mapping on a yearly basis.

·         On development of the site there would be a requirement to restrict the flow of water to 20-30 litres per second and concerns had been raised.

 

The applicant’s agents were present at the meeting and stated that they had requested that additional information be circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.  Members expressed concern that they had not received information relevant to the application and requested that the matter be looked into.

 

The applicant’s agents then made the following comments:

 

·         A significant amount of information had been provided.

·         The proposal would not create a displacement of water.

·         There were a number of local flood alleviation schemes.

·         The sequential test had been provided, as requested and Airedale was the relevant area of study.

·         The flood risk could be suitably managed.

·         The proposed car park would be above the flood level.

·         It was a viable development and would provide employment for local people.

·         The outstanding issues had been addressed.

·         There was a lack of this type of development where there was a huge demand.

·         Concerns had been addressed and the scheme would be delivered.

·         Alternative sites in Airedale had not been identified.

·         Airedale should be connected to the Northern Powerhouse.

·         The application could fulfil the need of the area.

 

During the discussion a Member stated that jobs were needed in Keighley and it was hoped that the application was seen to have very special circumstances and approved.  Another Member indicated that the site was located within the Green Belt and questioned whether the reasons could be classed as very special circumstances.  The need for jobs was acknowledged, however, the whole of the District required employment and if it was stated that the provision of jobs was a very special circumstance then this would apply to any site.  The justification should be specific to the site in question.  The Member added that he did not believe that the flood risk had been resolved and the sequential test was immaterial, as the application proposed Green Belt development. 

 

A Member reported that the location was a previous employment site and Keighley needed jobs.  The special circumstances related to this and the fact that there were no other available sites of a comparable size in Airedale.  The use of Euro 5 and 6 emission standard vehicles on the site should be encouraged in order to meet air quality requirements, solar panels had been suggested and a regular and recorded clean of the area should be undertaken.  Keighley needed investment and apprenticeships had also been proposed.  It was noted by another Member that the site was only partly in the Green Belt and if the Committee was minded to approve the application it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. 

 

In response the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that a statement of the very special circumstances and a list of specialist planning conditions would be required if the Committee were minded to recommend the application for approval.  He suggested that the formation of the conditions be delegated to officers.  Members requested that the Chair and Deputy Chair were involved in the process and the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways agreed and added that the applicant should be consulted as well.

 

A Member requested assurances that the scheme would be progressed as soon as possible and the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the Chair would be provided with regular updates.  He added that as few as possible conditions would be placed on the application and, where ever possible, they would not include a pre-commencement clause.

 

Resolved –

 

Members are minded that planning permission should be granted and referred to the Secretary of State, in coming to this conclusion Members consider there are very special circumstances that warrant the grant of “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt for the following reasons:

 

(i)         The site was previously allocated as an employment site and such allocation was principally removed because the site was at risk of flooding.  The applicant has now demonstrated that the site can be developed without an increased risk of flooding.

 

(ii)        Not all of the site is within the Green Belt and there is a proven need for employment land within the District that cannot be met.

 

(iii)       There is no recent evidence of flooding and works of flood alleviation are taking place further upstream.

 

(iv)      The applicant had demonstrated through a sequential test that there are no other suitable employment sites within the vicinity of Keighley to accommodate the proven need.

 

And in addition to the above, before being referred to the Secretary of State, the Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways shall produce a list of relevant planning conditions in consultation with the applicant, and thereafter the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, which shall include all appropriate conditions for a development of this scale and nature.  These conditions shall include:

 

(i)            The provision of maintenance of flood alleviation measures to ensure continued operation.

 

(ii)          The incorporation of all appropriate sustainable measures that will not preclude the commencement of development.

 

ACTION:   Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways