A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AU”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 102 dwellings and a 90 bed nursing home, including means of access and the relocation of a Scout Hut, on land at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley – 16/08233/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:

 

The payment of a financial contribution of £25,000 towards measures to mitigate against potential impacts on habitats from increased recreational pressures on the South Pennines Special Protection Area,

 

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)

 

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AU”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 102 dwellings and a 90 bed nursing home, including means of access and the relocation of a Scout Hut, on land at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley – 16/08422/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations, received since the publication of his written report, from two of the Ward Councillors and a local resident. He also made a correction to his report in terms of the application number which should read 16/08422/MAO.

 

In response to questions from Members he indicated the location of the pumping station and explained that:

 

·         The station pumped water to a number of premises and would be unaffected by the development.

·         The development would be connected to the existing mains water supply.

·         A number of the trees on the site were covered by Tree Protection Orders, including some as part of a Group Order.

·         The numbers on the plan indicated spot heights to give an indication of the topography of the site; the land sloped down towards the beck.

·         A section of the site furthest north was within Flood Zone 3; all the proposed development area was within Flood Zone 1.

 

A representative of the Friends of North Beck Valley addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposals and tabled photographs to illustrate his points:

 

·         More housing was needed but this was the wrong place.

·         There had been no assessment of the harm to the listed building. The presumption in favour of development was removed if there was harm.

·         The officer’s report was considered to be misleading in terms of the land allocation. There was no evidence in respect of the original allocation so this could be given no significant weight.

·         The report ignored the large scale concern expressed by objectors in relation to the impact on the recreational area, this asset was not even mentioned.

·         The site was adjacent to Tinker; a much loved area of countryside and the  number 1 beauty spot in Keighley. It contained footpaths, a play and picnic area, bridge and waterfall. It was very peaceful and could receive 150 to 200 visitors on a nice day. It provided amenities for swimming, boating, fishing, ramblers and school groups studying nature. It supported a wide range of wildlife including kingfishers and curlews. It was an uplifting place to be and was beneficial to health and wellbeing.

·         This development would affect long distance views across the valley which included wildflower meadows and lambs.

·         The main footpath passed through a farmyard; the farm had been there since the 1600s and a visit here was akin to going back in time, this was part of the special character of the area.

·         In comparing the tabled photographs (Photo 2 included a representation of the massing of the development) the harm that would be caused to the views and the feeling of calm could be seen.

·         The development would be very close to existing property.

·         Noise would disturb the current tranquility.

·         Photograph 3 indicated the position of the proposed development across the designated Wildlife Corridor; this should not be blocked.

·         Keighley people had wonderful memories of Tinker. It was a valuable local amenity and very special. It should be protected from harm and the Committee was urged not to approve the proposal without first visiting.

 

He responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The photograph had been taken from the public footpath leading down to Tinker from the Laycock/Braithwaite side.

·         The Friends Group had not been consulted in respect of the habitat/bio diversity issues and it was considered that the questions raised by the former Senior Countryside Officer had not been answered.

 

The Assistant Director said that there had been close scrutiny of bio diversity. The Countryside Team Leader had not raised any issues. Consideration had been given to the Habitat Regulations and mitigation measures were proposed in respect of footpath improvements to deflect visitors from the Special Protection Area (SPA)/Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

 

In response to a further question from a Committee Member, he explained that the Bradford Wildlife Corridor washed over this site and that the north eastern section of the site was designated for employment use.

 

A Ward Councillor detailed the following concerns:

 

·         This site was within the Bradford Wildlife Corridor; it supported numerous species including bats, baby otters, voles, curlews and deer and potentially a rare orchid. It was referred to as the ‘Lungs of Keighley’ and consisted of mainly greenfield not brownfield land.

·         The development would have one access/egress onto Fell Lane which was already a busy main route to the Town Centre. There was only one bus every 30 minutes.

·         This development would not have a ‘moderate’ impact. Local GPs and the primary schools were all oversubscribed.

·         The site was located within a nil CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) area and there would be no contributions to offset its impact.

·         The Recreation Department had requested a contribution to accord with RUDP (Replacement Unitary Development Plan) Policy OS5.

·         £25,000 had been offered towards footpath improvements to protect the SPA by deterring visitors.

·         No affordable housing was proposed due to viability issues; it was considered that if affordable housing was not viable then the whole development should not be considered viable.

·         There was insufficient information to satisfy concerns in respect of ecological diversity and the impact on wildlife.

·         The applicant had had two years to provide information.

·         A two acre wood would be demolished to accommodate a nursing home.

·         There was no mitigation for wildlife.

·         There were concerns about highway issues.

·         The Arboriculture and Countryside Officers did not support the proposal.

·         The application did not meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policies TR1 and TR3.

·         The site was in the middle of a designated wildlife corridor.

·         The Committee was asked to refuse the application.

 

The Assistant Director replied that some concerns had been raised initially by the Ecology Officer. Further to this a senior officer had dealt with the issue; additional information had been submitted and the position as set out in his technical report constituted their final response.

 

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

 

·         The Assistant Director’s report was clear.

·         This site had been earmarked for development for many years.

·         The RUDP had been adopted in 2005 following a Public Inquiry.

·         The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 3 (2015) had confirmed the suitability of the site.

·         The District had a need for housing.

·         The Core Strategy set out a requirement for 4000 houses to be provided in Keighley.

·         The Council was in default in respect of its five year supply of housing land.

·         The concerns that had been expressed were acknowledged. In respect of the increase in traffic the applicant had submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment that had been reviewed by the Authority’s officers and there were no objections. An extensive report had been provided by consultants in respect of trees and biodiversity issues and had responded to the issues raised. The layout had been amended to ensure that tree loss was minimised.

·         The pumping station would not be affected.

·         This was an outline application and there were a number of conditions proposed to provide safeguards in relation to landscaping and trees.

·         Any issues in respect of potential overlooking and overshadowing would be addressed at Reserved Matters stage.

·         The Council had adopted the CIL and this site fell within a nil charge zone. The report explained why no affordable housing was proposed.

·         The site also fell within the SPA/SCA zone and the applicant had agreed to the full sum requested to address any impact; how this was spent was a matter for the Council.

·         In relation to the Scout Hut; the group’s licence expired in September. The applicant had offered an alternative site and the security of a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent.

·         All the proposed conditions were accepted.

·         The form of development remained within the control of the Council.

 

The Assistant Director said that the Conservation Team had said that the impact on Intake Farm would be insignificant and adequate mitigation could be provided by landscaping. There was an industrial building in-between and it was not considered that there would be an adverse impact on its setting.

 

He also replied to further questions:

 

·         This was a nil CIL area so contributions could not be sought for education or recreation infrastructure. The Education Department would consider the implications of such development for future school places and contribute to the decision making process when CIL money was allocated (from the central resource).

·         A minimum road width of 5.5 metres was normally required for a traditional estate road but this could be reduced to 4.8 metres. 60 metres spacing was usually required on a main road between junctions but it was considered that this could be easily relaxed in situations such as this.

 

Members expressed the following views:

 

·         The aim was to build places for people to live. This was a deprived area. This application would contribute to reducing the amount of green space.

·         This was a charming part of Keighley and it appeared that a developer was taking advantage of it being within the nil CIL area in offering only £25,000 contributions which was a very small percentage of what the houses would be worth.

·         The scheme would have an impact on the Wildlife Network which had not been addressed and there would also be a social impact.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved –

 

That the Committee considers the proposed development to be unacceptable for the following reasons:

 

(i)         It will lead to the loss of a valuable asset for the local community with a potential impact on social cohesion, contrary to Paragraphs 92, 93 and 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(ii)        The scheme does not offer any affordable housing provision in an area where there is significant need, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HO11.

 

(iii)       It would lead to the loss of woodland/protected trees with no replacement planting or mitigation identified, contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN5.

 

(iv)      It would have an adverse impact on the Bradford Wildlife Area, contrary to Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) Policy K/NE9.57 and Core Strategy Policy EN2.

 

(v)       The proposed points of access/egress, by reason of layout and proximity to each other, would have a severe impact on highway safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy DS4.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways