Previous reference:Minute 56 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AT”) in relation to an outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO.

 

Members will recall that this application was considered at the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2018 when it was resolved:

 

‘(1)       That consideration of the application be deferred until a local referendum on the Burley Neighbourhood Plan has taken place in May 2018; this being subject to the prior approval of the Executive, or, if approval is not given to the undertaking of the referendum in May that it be re-submitted to the next appropriate meeting of this Committee.

 

(2)       That the applicant be requested to provide a more defined strategy to show how a school can be delivered on the site, including consideration of how this will fit within the overall phasing of the development.’

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it 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 City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)         Affordable housing provision of 30% of the total units on site (or equivalent value); these units to be prioritised for people living in, working in or having close family links to the Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish and secondly the wider Wharfedale area.

(ii)        The safeguarding of an area of land within the site for the provision of an up to two form entry Primary School and to offer this land to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, if requested, in order to deliver the school. The area of land identified for the school will be reserved for a minimum period of 10 years and will be transferred to the Council at the appropriate time at a cost of £1. Also, the establishment of a Primary School Delivery Partnership whose remit and terms of reference will be to seek to deliver the new school in the most appropriate manner and at the most appropriate time.

(iii)       Payment of commuted sums to secure highway improvements and sustainable travel measures as follows:

(a)       £15,000 for a review of the existing Traffic Regulation Orders on Main Street, Burley-in-Wharfedale; to include a review of waiting restrictions, loading restrictions and the potential for 20 mph speed restrictions. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 1st unit.

(b)       £55,000 for traffic calming and footway strengthening Traffic Regulation Orders in the Sun Lane area. This sum to be payable upon completion of the pedestrian link between the site and Sun Lane.

(c)       £40,000 to implement improvements to the A65 Coutances Way/Wheatley Lane Junction; taking the form of the installation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) within the traffic signals.  This sum to be payable on occupation of the 401st unit.

(d)       £25,000  towards Vehicle Activated Signs and the introduction of traffic islands on Manor Park. This sum to be payable upon completion of the ghost island right turn lane access into the site from the A65 (as shown on Drawing 13-215-TR-009A).

(e)       £65,000 towards TR2500 Controller specification software improvements to the traffic lights at the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 1st unit.

(f)        £320,000 towards a scheme of wider improvements to the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction, as shown on Plan 13-215-TR-024. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 301st unit.

(g)       £75,000 per annum to fund improving, re-routing and increasing the frequency of the 962 bus service (or any equivalent replacement facility) for a period of five years (£375,000); in order to provide a regular public transport link between the site, Burley Rail Station and the remainder of the settlement. This sum to be payable to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority in five equal annualised payments with the first payment being made upon substantial completion of the internal estate road,

 

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 – 01274434380)

 

Previous reference:Minute 56 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AT”) in relation to an outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

 

Members were reminded that this application had been considered at the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2018 when it was resolved:

 

‘(1)       That consideration of the application be deferred until a local referendum on the Burley Neighbourhood Plan has taken place in May 2018; this being subject to the prior approval of the Executive, or, if approval is not given to the undertaking of the referendum in May that it be re-submitted to the next appropriate meeting of this Committee.

 

(2)       That the applicant be requested to provide a more defined strategy to show how a school can be delivered on the site, including consideration of how this will fit within the overall phasing of the development.’

 

The Assistant Director went through the report, which detailed the developments since the meeting in January, and explained that:

 

·         The referendum in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan had resulted in a ‘yes’ vote of 82%.  The plan was therefore endorsed and in force and was thus a material planning consideration. The plan included a series of policies, a large proportion of which would be relevant for the issues that would be considered at Reserved Matters stage.  There had been a suggestion that policies within the plan would mean that the present scheme was inappropriate but this was not the case. A previous version had referred to the use of small sites but as this had not been compliant with the Core Strategy it had been removed.

·         This was a mixed use application and if planning permission was granted it would include consent for a primary school. The 1.78 hectares proposed to be reserved was sufficient space for a two-form entry primary school.  The applicant had provided justification for the location of the school as indicated. Three options in terms of the provision of a school were set out in his report; there was also the opportunity to include the facility for some community use. Under the terms of the Section 106 legal obligation the land would be transferred to the Council at a cost of £1; the land would be reserved for a minimum of 10 years and would be provided fully serviced with roads and utilities. The CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Regulations would not permit the developer to build the school and pay the CIL contribution. The site was within the £100 per square metre CIL zone.

·         It was proposed that a Primary School Delivery Partnership be established with a clear remit to deliver a new school.

·         If the Committee was minded to approve the application, he recommended the imposition of an additional condition to secure a plan for the delivery of the school. He advised that Education Services supported the concept of a School Delivery Partnership and their participation in this body.

 

He also reported on the substance of additional representations received since the publication of his technical report and responded to the issues therein commenting that:

 

·         Maintenance of the on-site infrastructure such as public open space would be financed by an annual levy paid by residents.

·         Issues in respect of the rail infrastructure had been raised during consideration of the Core Strategy.

·         The Local Planning Authority had considered all the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) sites and officers considered that this scheme was not parallel to one previously considered by the Committee at Goose Cote Lane which had been refused.

·         The issue in respect of the provision of 700 dwellings in Burley had been raised at the Planning Inquiry associated with the Core Strategy and the Inspector had endorsed Burley as an area of growth.

·         The site was close to the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Ilkley Special Protection Area and Harrogate; the implications of this had been fully considered in the officer’s technical report.

·         It was considered that the railway station was within walking distance of the site and it was proposed that the local bus service be upgraded.

·         In relation to a suggestion about the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers in respect of the land necessary for a school, officers would not advocate such an approach and a landowner could not be forced to sell land for less than market value.

·         The site was within Flood Zone 1; there had been no substantive evidence provided in respect of groundwater issues and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment did not raise any issues in this regard.

·         The proposed approach in respect of the Roman Camp was supported by Historic England and officers believed that this was a positive approach to take.

·         The other small sites referred to, for which planning permission had been refused, had not demonstrated very special circumstances to permit development in the Green Belt.

·         In terms of the Council’s Assessment Criteria in relation to Purpose 1 (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas) as set out for the Allocations Development Plan Document Green Belt Review, the same basis would have been used for this application.

·         There was no requirement for the Council to formally consult the adjacent District Council; the site did not straddle the boundary.

·         Officers disagreed with the suggestion that the setting of the Listed Building had not been properly considered.

·         Other issues raised had already been covered in the technical report or through comments.

·         The developer had submitted a statement in respect of the very special circumstances considered to apply in this case.

·         The very special circumstances were clearly set out and a precise reason for granting permission had been stated.

·         In respect of an issue raised in relation to the consultation response from Yorkshire Water; the company had a statutory responsibility to provide sewerage infrastructure to accomodate development. Two consultation responses had been received which did not raise objections and proposed the imposition of conditions. These were included in those set out in the technical report. This position had been confirmed with Yorkshire Water by telephone this morning.

·         It was noted that the application was subject to referral to the Secretary of State if the Committee was minded to approve it.

 

He responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·         The Burley Neighbourhood Plan had been published further to a significant level of consultation; this document set out the neighbourhood’s aspirations for how planning went forward in its area; it did not allocate sites or determine the Green Belt boundaries.

·         In its early stages, when the allocation for Burley had been 200 dwellings,  it had included provisions that could have affected this site but these had been taken out.

·         A lot of the content was relevant to Reserved Matters issues.

·         The document also included the area’s ‘wish list’ in respect of the issues that local residents wanted to see addressed and that could be considered for the allocation of CIL monies by the Parish Council. An example of which would be bringing empty shop units back into use.

·         Government guidance established what a Neighbourhood Plan could and could not address; it could not deal with strategic policy. In theory it could look towards allocations within the settlement boundary but could not undertake changes to the boundary of the Green Belt. Allocations were usually undertaken by the local Council with the Parish Council being given the opportunity to comment at a number of stages.

·         The process for allocating sites was a matter for the Allocations Plan Document (APD) which took account of Government guidance and would be undertaken in accordance with Core Strategy policies and any changes to national planning guidance. This process included full consultation with the public and Parish/Town Councils and would then be examined at a Public Inquiry to which interested parties could make representations.

·         Officers had looked at the options to meet the target for 700 new dwellings in Burley. At this point in time there were only a certain number of options in the SHLAA and the question had been asked ‘would the additional sites be sufficient to meet the target?’, the answer to which being ‘no’. This site would have to make a significant contribution to achieve the 700 target. No new sites had been identified despite reviews of the SHLAA and related consultation. 

·         There were specific benefits applicable to this site being considered ahead of other SHLAA sites. Use of smaller sites would lead to a lot of boundaries, which would be much harder to defend, whereas this site had specific boundaries; the road to the north, the nature reserve, the railway line and the existing built form.  Some of the other sites to the south and east were more isolated from the village and more vulnerable in terms of the distance from other built up areas so this site was considered to have a lower impact on the Green Belt in the longer term.

·         On its own the Roman Camp would not be considered as sufficient to merit very special circumstances but, in officer’s judgement, it was a benefit. At present it was not noted or celebrated but was just in the middle of a field. Conservation experts were happy that this would be further explored and celebrated. The connection made with this particular scheme was considered to have some merit.

·         If the application was granted the outline permission would include consent for a school so there was a clear commitment by the Council. The applicant had acknowledged the long term infrastructure needs for Burley and the need for additional school provision, the Education Service concurred with this, and there was a wish for the school to be built. It was not possible to confirm that a new school would be built but it was considered that there were sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that it could be.

·         No funding existed within the School Funding Programme for this school but there were other funding sources one of which was CIL monies. Councils no longer built schools but facilitated their delivery.

·         The Education Planning Team had been heavily involved with the application and had not raised any concerns in respect of secondary school provision.

·         The Council’s CIL 123 List covered education funding.

·         All CIL monies would be spent on infrastructure within the Bradford district unless they were used to contribute towards a highways project with a wider strategic impact. It was not possible to say that the CIL monies payable by this developer would be spent on any particular infrastructure provision or in this locality.  Decisions on how the funding in the CIL ‘pot’ was allocated would be taken by the Council’s Executive; it was intended to cover education, highways and recreational infrastructure.

·         The Local Planning Authority was not permitted to ask a developer to pay CIL but then also ask them to make another financial contribution for the same thing (known as ‘double dipping’).  If the developer released the necessary land to the Council at less than market value and then paid CIL this would not count as two contributions.

 

A representative of objectors addressed the Committee:

 

·         He was a local resident and had formerly been a Senior Planning Officer.

·         This was a very controversial application with over 200 people submitting objections and many more having the same concerns.

·         It was considered that approval of this proposal constituted pre-judgement of the outcome of the Allocation Plan process which was a crucial part of the Local Plan. This should have been published by this point but the slow progress made by the Council meant that applications had been submitted for Green Belt land. This meant that the Burley community would be presented with a fait-accompli with the Allocations Plan.

·         Proceeding with this application because of the significant contribution the site would make to the 700 target (for Burley) was wrong and amounted to treating local residents with contempt, not allowing them to be consulted on all potential sites. The scheme would make changes to the Green Belt but this could only be done through the Allocations Plan process.

·         The application should be judged solely on Green Belt policy and very special circumstances.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework was to be revised and the related consultation had now ended. The Government had stated that the Framework would retain strong protection of the Green Belt and a high bar for development would be maintained.

·         It was clear that the Neighbourhood Plan was not for the allocation of sites or to review Green Belt.

·         In the approved Neighbourhood Plan at paragraph 1.17 it was restated that there should be no large scale developments.

·         The Council and the developer’s view was that a large scheme was better, local residents believed otherwise and it was considered that they should have a proper say and proper consultation, as other areas of the district would have, not to be presented with a fait accompli.

 

The three Ward Councillors were in attendance at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         Officers were arguing that ‘very special circumstances’ applied in this case. Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out five purposes of Green Belt that needed to be taken into account. Three of these being:

o   To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – it was argued that the impact of this development could be mitigated by design but Case Law held that new buildings in the Green Belt constituted inappropriate development and the High Court had decided that development could not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. If a proposal had an impact on openness then it could not be said to comply with policy. In R v Epping Forest in 2016 it was stated that the concept of openness meant, in effect, the absence of buildings. It was therefore considered that the officers’ argument was erroneous.

o   To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – it was maintained that Burley could not be excluded from this provision purely due to its size and population. The Conservation Area Assessment of 2004 assessed Burley as dating back to Anglo-Saxon times and it was considered that this purpose was therefore relevant.

o   To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land – it was suggested by officers that there was no such land in the  vicinity so Green Belt development was permissible but it was considered that this, again, was erroneous.

·         The Assistant Director’s conclusion that there would be no impact or limited impact on the Green Belt was inaccurate.

·         The argued benefits of this development were; the need for more housing and there being no other suitable sites, an acute shortfall in housing land supply and the provision of affordable housing, but the absence of suitable land did not make this proposal acceptable. The Government had clearly stated that unmet housing need was unlikely to be considered to outweigh harm to Green Belt.

·         There was a need for affordable housing in the City Centre; it was questioned to whom the properties in Burley would be affordable?

·         A number of recent planning applications in the district (a list of 5 locations was listed) had been refused on the recommendation of officers on the basis that they represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The benefits of these schemes had been raised but it had been concluded that the harm to the Green Belt was not outweighed. It was considered that officers’ recommendations were inconsistent as this scheme represented three times the total combined number of units for all five of the stated schemes.

·         The Committee should refuse planning permission.

 

·         Although the Council now had a Core Strategy it did not yet have a Local Development Plan.

·         There had been no consultation in respect of land allocations and this scheme was therefore ‘jumping the gun’.

·         For a scheme to be sustainable it was required to meet the needs of the present and not compromise future generations.

·         This development did not satisfy the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of infrastructure.

·         If Yorkshire Water required 500 extra houses to be phased over 8 to 10 years what about the others proposed for Burley?

·         Burley was already congested and local residents experienced difficulty in accessing basic services due to parking issues. There were a lot of elderly and vulnerable people within the community for whom this was a particular concern.

·         Parking at the railway station was already problematic. On street parking clashed with school buses and parents dropping off at the nearby school.

·         The proposed enhancements to the bus service were not sufficient.

·         The furthest distance to the station would be 1.6 miles uphill; residents would not walk that distance. There was no room to expand the car park and it was already standing room only on the train.

·         The A65 was already a bottleneck and air quality was an important issue.

·         There had been claims made that Railtrack were hoping to improve the Wharfedale Line but she had been informed by Railtrack that there were no plans to do so and no funding to undertake such works.

·         It should be noted that CEG’s new station at Kirkstall Forge did not have a longer platform.

·         It appeared that the issue of the new school had been ‘fudged’ with the promise of a Partnership and it was questioned how this would work? It must not be used to cover over a failed promise to build a school; there were too many provisos to allow opting out. Secondary school places were also needed; Ilkley Grammar School could only expand to a certain point.

·         Provision was only being made to meet existing need; there would be a great deal of pain before a new school was built.

·         There were to be hundreds of houses built in the area and great pressure placed on school places in Bradford and Leeds. There was concern that children from Burley could be refused places at Ilkley Grammar School in the future.

·         The development would cause unacceptable disruption to people’s lives and the £1 million to be allocated to the Parish Council would not address the issues.

 

·         He was a Governor at Menston Primary School.

·         The recommendations were unclear in respect of future Councillor and public involvement.

·         It was not believed that there was sufficient evidence to permit 500 houses in the Green Belt and that this proposal met the criteria of ‘very special circumstances’. The site was within the Green Belt and must be decided on Green Belt policy.

·         The Neighbourhood Plan stated that there should be no large scale development as this would distort the existing balance of life. This development would tip that balance.

·         It was considered that Harrogate District Council should have been consulted as Trustees of the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         Determination of the application should be delayed until after the Green Belt Review was completed.

·         It was recognised that there was a need for affordable housing but it should be affordable, proportionate and focussed on the people of Burley. There were too few jobs in the area and the properties would not be affordable for local residents. It was considered that the numbers on this site should be reduced, and have strict criteria, and that affordable housing provision be supported for other areas of the district where it would be sustainable.

·         There should be a brownfield first policy.

·         If the application was approved it was likely that it would be phased over a period of 8 years and this would mean that the highway improvements to the junctions of Coutances Way/Wheatley Lane and Buckle Lane/Bingley Road would not be undertaken for at least 5 years. There was already pressure on the A65. It was questioned what involvement Ward Councillors and the Parish Council would have in these decisions and whether the timescales could be shortened?

·         If this application was approved when would the criteria for ‘Lifetime Homes’ be discussed and determined?

·         No clarity had been provided in relation to primary and secondary school places. It was considered that there were too many pitfalls with the current proposals; this was not a real solution. It was questioned what would happen after 10 years? It was considered that the developer had little understanding about how new schools were procured and funded. The impact on the sustainability of surrounding schools had not been recognised. In respect of the proposed Partnership, the Education Department had said that it should not be contingent on the liability to provide the school being passed to the Authority with a shortfall.

·         The application should be rejected.

 

A representative of the Parish Council put forward the following points:

 

·         The concept of the provision of some additional homes on this site was supported; it appeared the only way to meet the target of 700 would be the inclusion of this site, but the Green Belt Review should be carried out prior to a decision being made.  Changes to the Green Belt would be necessary to meet the target and the review should be completed before the application was considered.

 

The Assistant Director commented that:

 

·         A Supplementary Planning Document in respect of Lifetime Homes was in development.

·         The suggestion that the application be delayed until the results of the Green Belt Review were known was another way of saying that the application was premature but prematurity was very narrowly defined. The Green Belt Review was unlikely to give the answers being sought and would not, in itself, propose the allocation of particular sites. It was just one of a number of evidence based studies that would be the basis for decisions on allocations; the Authority was at least two years away from such final decisions.

·         In making its choice of sites the Local Planning Authority would have to consider a lot more than just the Green Belt Review. This would not be completed until the end of 2018.

 

He responded to further queries from Members:

 

·         In the development of the Neighbourhood Plan early drafts had text/policies setting out the aspiration/preference of local people for smaller sites; this had to be struck out because of the target set by the Core Strategy which could not be met by small sites alone; there had to be at least a contribution by a larger site.

·         Part of the case made by the applicant concerned the benefits to be derived from a large site; it was harder to get infrastructure, for example to address highway implications, if development was fragmented. With a larger site it could be dealt with in a more managed way.

·         There had been dialogue with the Manager of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this input had fed into the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; there had been no formal planning consultation.

·         There were no other examples of sites of this size, in the Green Belt, being considered for development elsewhere, it was considered that this application involved a unique set of circumstances.

·         The application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State if the Committee was minded to grant permission.

·         In terms of precedent he considered that it was highly unlikely that there would be a comparable situation.

 

The applicant also addressed the Committee:

 

·         The application had been deferred at the meeting held in January 2018 to clarify issues in respect of the delivery of the school. Since that point a comprehensive report had been produced in respect of the funding options and the mechanism for delivery.

·         A Partnership would be established and funded to deliver the right school at the right time. The Partnership would include the Council, the Parish Council, the existing schools and representatives of CEG and its advisors.

·         The necessary land would be reserved for a minimum of ten years and ownership transferred for £1.

·         This may be the only opportunity for a new school in Burley. It would be secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

·         Regular progress reports would be produced to allow the process to be monitored.

·         In addition to this the developer would pay a CIL contribution of up to £5 million and £3 million in New Homes Bonus.

·         The applicant wanted the school to happen; it was a socially responsible developer and it also made good business sense.

·         The applicants had gone as far as was possible in terms of delivery of a school.

·         The long term legacy of its development was important for the company.

·         In July 2017 the Core Strategy had been adopted after a long process; this scheme was considered to be fully consistent with that document.

·         The requirement for 700 houses (in Burley) had been endorsed by the Inspector on the basis of the availability of this site.

·         The scheme would include major community benefits: 30% affordable housing provision; new allotments, landscaping and open space, ecological and biodiversity improvements; the integration and opening up of the Roman Camp (Historic England were excited by this proposal) and £1 million of highway improvements including the expansion of the 962 bus service.

·         The decision had also been deferred to await the result of the local referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan which had received a very convincing ‘yes’ vote. This application was not inconsistent with that document. The need for 700 new homes was accepted. The applicant was pleased that the Parish Council did not object.

·         Extensive publicity and stakeholder consultation had taken place on the application and all issues addressed. There were no objections from the technical consultees.

·         Very special circumstances existed, the scheme was in accordance with local and national planning policy.

·         The Assistant Director had not reached his conclusions lightly.

 

He responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The allotments and Public Open Space would be maintained by a private management company funded by the residents through a service charge.

·         In an ideal world people would walk but the distance to the station was acknowledged. The 962 bus service was currently on the threshold of being viable, the idea was to try and draw residents into using it at an early stage and if it was frequent enough, regular and convenient it was considered that people would use it. The alternative to this sustainable solution would be to provide more car parking but this generally had the effect of encouraging further car use.

·         There were options in respect of funding for a school. The purpose of the Partnership was to explore this further and identify the most appropriate way forward.

·         The Terms of Reference for the Partnership and the membership would be agreed as part of the Section 106 Legal Agreement. The company was open minded in respect of membership but the initial thoughts had been that it would include representatives of the developer, the Council, existing primary schools, Ward Councillors, the Parish Council, key education stakeholders and perhaps potential school operators.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         There was a conflict in that it was suggested that people should be able to direct their own future, such as through the development of a Neighbourhood Plan to determine the future of the town, but then their ability to do so was curtailed in that there was no choice about where to put houses. It was understandable why people got irritated with those in authority.

·         In order to allow the use of prime Green Belt land this application really ought to be exceptionally good and it did not appear to be so. It would provide 500 homes and a piece of land but no school; it was not believed that the partnership approach would work.

·         There had been a lot of issues raised and concern expressed in respect of drainage and sewers. Yorkshire Water had said that they could phase some improvements but this needed to be done before the site was developed. Residents had suffered problems with sewage in their gardens.

·         This was a difficult decision; it was inappropriate development in the Green Belt but were there very special circumstances to overrule this? In this location the provision of a specific number of houses was specified and this could only happen if this site was taken into consideration so this may be the only way to deliver the target.

·         700 houses were needed in Burley and if not on this site it was difficult to see where they would go.

·         The Reserved Matters should be submitted to this Committee and the Committee should also receive regular updates in respect of the School Delivery Partnership.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report, subject to the amendment of Condition 46 to read as follows:

 

            ‘46. School delivery

As part of the submission of the first reserved matters application, the applicant shall submit a report setting out progress with the timescales and mechanism for delivery of a school on the site. The submitted report shall specifically set out a timetable for all required actions and shall detail and assign individual responsibilities for the applicants and any other relevant party involved in the school delivery process. Updates of this report (including the updating of the required timetable and assignment of delivery responsibilities) shall be provided for all subsequent reserved matters applications proposing a further phase of development, until the point of delivery of the school.

 

Reason: in order to ensure the delivery of the school and to accord with Policies P1, SC1 and SC5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.’

 

(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 City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)         Affordable housing provision of 30% of the total units on site (or equivalent value); these units to be prioritised for people living in, working in or having close family links to the Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish and secondly the wider Wharfedale area.

(ii)        The safeguarding of an area of land within the site for the provision of an up to two form entry Primary School and to offer this land to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, if requested, in order to deliver the school. The area of land identified for the school will be reserved for a minimum period of 10 years and will be transferred to the Council at the appropriate time at a cost of £1. Also, the establishment of a Primary School Delivery Partnership whose remit and terms of reference will be to seek to deliver the new school in the most appropriate manner and at the most appropriate time.

(iii)       Payment of commuted sums to secure highway improvements and sustainable travel measures as follows:

(a)       £15,000 for a review of the existing Traffic Regulation Orders on Main Street, Burley-in-Wharfedale; to include a review of waiting restrictions, loading restrictions and the potential for 20 mph speed restrictions. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 1st unit.

(b)       £55,000 for traffic calming and footway strengthening Traffic Regulation Orders in the Sun Lane area. This sum to be payable upon completion of the pedestrian link between the site and Sun Lane.

(c)       £40,000 to implement improvements to the A65 Coutances Way/Wheatley Lane Junction; taking the form of the installation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) within the traffic signals.  This sum to be payable on occupation of the 401st unit.

(d)       £25,000  towards Vehicle Activated Signs and the introduction of traffic islands on Manor Park. This sum to be payable upon completion of the ghost island right turn lane access into the site from the A65 (as shown on Drawing 13-215-TR-009A).

(e)       £65,000 towards TR2500 Controller specification software improvements to the traffic lights at the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 1st unit.

(f)        £320,000 towards a scheme of wider improvements to the Buckle Lane/Bingley Road Junction, as shown on Plan 13-215-TR-024. This sum to be payable on occupation of the 301st unit.

(g)       £75,000 per annum to fund improving, re-routing and increasing the frequency of the 962 bus service (or any equivalent replacement facility) for a period of five years (£375,000); in order to provide a regular public transport link between the site, Burley Rail Station and the remainder of the settlement. This sum to be payable to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority in five equal annualised payments with the first payment being made upon substantial completion of the internal estate road,

 

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.

 

(4)       That the Committee receive regular progress reports in respect of the Primary School Delivery Partnership.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        Interim City Solicitor