Public Document Pack
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
Meeting to be held in on Thursday, 8th November, 2012 at 1.30 pm
MEMBERSHIP
Councillors
J Akhtar J Bentley P Wadsworth R Finnigan M Coulson R Wood C Gruen J Harper (Chair) C Towler P Truswell J Walker
Agenda compiled by: Andrew Booth Governance Services Civic Hall Tel: 0113 24 74325
Produced on Recycled Paper
A G E N D A
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
1 APPEALS AGAINST REFU SAL OF INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 25 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)
(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 25, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
2 EXEMPT INFORMATION - POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
1 To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.
2 To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.
3 If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-
RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-
No exempt items or information have been identified on the agenda
3 LAT E ITEMS
To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration
(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
4 DECLARATIONS OF DISC LOSABLE PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS
To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-18 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. Also to declare any other significant interests which the Member wishes to declare in the public interest, in accordance with paragraphs 19-20 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
5 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENC E
6 MINUTES 3 - 16
Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012
7 Weetwood APPLICATION 12/0 3473/FU - 35 CLAREMONT 17 - DRIVE, LEEDS, LS6 4ED 28
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of a former children’s home to 7 bed house in multiple occupation.
8 Headingley APPLICATION 12/02491 /OT - VICTORIA ROAD, 29 - HEADINGLEY 46
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development and retail store.
9 Hyde Park APPLICATION 12/02712 /FU - LAND AT 47 - and WOODHOUSE STREET, WOODHOUSE, LEEDS 60 Woodhouse To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a part three storey part four storey block of 18 cluster flats (112 rooms), retail store at ground floor, associated parking and landscaping.
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
10 Horsforth APPLICATION 12/03599 /FU - LOW GREEN 61 - FARM, 40 LEEDS ROAD, RAWDON 72
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a refrigerated chiller extension with car parking area and landscaping.
11 Beeston and APPLICATION 10/04404 /FU - JUNCTION OF 73 - Holbeck MOORHOUSE AND OLD LANE, BEESTON, 106 LEEDS
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a retail store with car parking and landscaping
12 Beeston and APPLICATION 11/04306 /OT - SITE OF ASDA 107 - Holbeck STORE, OLD LANE, BEESTON 128
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application to demolish existing buildings and erect a retail foodstore (Class A1), with car parking, landscaping and access.
13 Morley South APPLICATION 12/04061/ FU - COCKBURN HIGH 129 - SCHOOL, GIPSY LANE, BEESTON 140
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a 3G football pitch including changing facilities, eight lighting columns and fencing
14 Ardsley and APPLICATION 12/03373 /FU - CHURCH OF THE 141 - Robin Hood NATIVITY, WESTERTON ROAD AND 152 WATERWOOD CLOSE, WEST ARDSLEY
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of a church, laying out of access and erect 14 dwellings
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
15 Morley South APPLICATION 12/03494 /FU - HUNGER HILL, 153 - MORLEY 158
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of a vacant warehouse to a private hire taxi booking office with car parking and installation of radio mast.
Chief Executive’s Department Democratic Services To: 4th Floor West Civic Hall Members of Plans Panel (West) Leeds LS1 1UR Plus appropriate Ward Members and Parish/Town Councils Contact: Andy Booth Tel: 0113 247 4325 Fax: 0113 395 1599 [email protected] Your reference: Our reference: ppw/sitevisit/ 2012 Dear Councillor
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL – SITE VISITS – THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER AT 1.30 pm
Prior to the next meeting of Plans Panel West there will be site visits in respect of the following; 1 10:45 Application 10/04404/FU – Erection of store with car parking and landscaping – junction of Moorhouse Avenue and Old Lane, Beeston (if travelling independently meet on Old Lane) 2 10:55 Application 11/04306?OT – Demolish existing buildings and erect a retail foodstore with car parking, landscaping and access. (if travelling idependently meet on Old Lane) 3 11:25 Application 12/02491/OT – Outline application for residential development and retail store – Victoria Road, Headingley (if travelling independently meet at entrance to site on Victoria Road Return to Civic Hall at 12:00 approximately
A minibus will leave the Civic Hall at 10.25 am prompt. Please contact Steve Butler Area Planning Manager (South and West) Tel: (0113) 2243421 if you are intending to come on the site visits and meet in the Civic Hall Ante Chamber at 10.20 am
Yours sincerely
Andy Booth Governance Officer
www.leeds.gov.uk switchboard : 0113 222 4444 Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 2 Agenda Item 6
!" # $ %& ' ( )* ( *" %* !" ( + * ) ) ( ) ( # $# ! ! ( ) ( ( , • ! -./0-%$M/* ( M 2 3 . 4 % &'#( () &'( *' &+ , -(# $ # # ( . ('( )(* & ! ( ( / 0 +# 1 5 ) ) * 6 + 2 1'' 3 '&#( 4 -# #''+5 '' ) + 7 R ) 7 9 ) ( ( :! ( 7 R $ R ) ) ) ; ( ) 7 9 (
Page 3 ( ) ( 7 R ) R < ! = ( 7 R (( ( 7 2 & *$ " (( ( 5 ( 1 4 7 ) ( ( 2 6 '&#( 7.8997: -7..97:4 -# ,''0(' , ) ( ( :! " ( $ > ( . ( $ $ ( -0.-&? ) ) ; ( ) @ + :! $ > R 9 ( ) ) & ( "3))&43 A0 ) ) ; @ + 4: ) ) ( ( + * ) :! ) ) ; @ + ( + ( $ B 5 -0.-&? ( ( ( ) ) ; ! $ ( + * ) ( " ( ( ( > 2 ( =
Page 4 7 " ) ) ; @ + ) ( > " $ ( = < > ) ) ; $ ( ?) ) B(( 7 ( ( . C :) 3)>+4( AD ( O P ( ) ) ; $ (> ( : $ ( ( 5 7 " ( )>+ ( ( " = ( 7 " & $ ( < ( ( < R ) 7 + @ B> ( ( ( ( Q < R ( 2 ( ( 2 :7 $ ( ( (( " ) 2 R ( $ ( , • • " • ( 9 ( $
Page 5 • ( ( ))& • > ( > • • ( ( ) > R ( ( ) ) ; R ) + ( > R ( ( > ) R :7 ( ( ( :$ ( ))&( ( ( ( 7 A :* ($ ( > ! > R ( 1 4 5 -0.-&? ) > -00-&? 3@ + M ! = 4 ( + @! ( = ? ) % @:A * ( * 9 9 '&#( 7%%74 -#+ #&')) (-0(' , ) ( :! " ( $ > ( # % $ <+/: $ ) ) ; . ! ( ) :! ) ) ; . ! ( $ R :! $ ( ( + * ) ) ( ) ! $ ( ( (
Page 6 ( ) ) : ( ?)( ) :7( $ ( ) ( ) ) ; 9 ( > $ " ( :*$ ( ( ; 2 ( ( $ ( ( !@ ! :0 B 9 !.@ ( ! @ ( !00 ) 2 R ( $ ( , • ( R + • " $ • ( ( 9 • 5 2 ( 2 • ( # % • ( ?) ( " 3 A@ 4 ) > R ( 1 4 ) > 2 ( + @! ( , • $ 5!/6 A0:0 • 5!@ • • 5 (( " • 5!6
Page 7 • 5!.@ • AD 3( 4 • 5 M)>+ :/ ( :A@ ( ( $@ :/ 7 ( + @ ( 6 ) > 8 '&#( 786.704 () # 5((-'( #- ' , ) ( ( > ( % $ ( ( /* ( * ! $ ( ( 2 ( 0 9 > % 2 ( ) 2 ( " " ( :$ ( ( 2 ( : $ ( , • ( ( 9 ( ( " ( " • ( ) ( 1 4 2 -0/A0-> '&#( 47/87:4. 5 *+,(- ' , Page 8 ) ( :! " ( $ > ( " 6 2 0 ( % $ ( ( " ( :7 B B( = ( :! ( 7 ( = Q < R ( % ( " ( R + ' ( 9 A( :7 @ ( ( % :* " ( ( : : = :$ ( ( ( ) 2 ( $ ( ( ( ( ( A ( ( > ( ( R ( ( 1 M 2
( A & ( * ( '&#( 47.%.7:4:(! 0 ( "+ , ''!(+ # '( !' ,
Page 9 ) ( ( :! " ( $ > ( 5( = "$ )"+ # <+ 6 $ ( ) ( ( ( ')5 B ( : ) ( = ! ( 9 ( ! ( : : : 9 = ( ( ( ( " ( ( 9 ' ) " ) R < > @:0 *$ ( : > $ 0 ( ( A0 2 (@/ ) 2 ( $ ( , • ( • ( • = ( • " ( (
Page 10 • = ( " 7 ( 9 ( ) + ))& ( 9 ( : $ ( ( ( ') ( ( ( 1 M 2
'&#( 7%27:4:(! # ' # (5 # ## ' , ) ( ( > ( ( 3! 4 ( ( 3# 4 ) + ( + + <+ $ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( " ( ( ($ 2 ( 6 ( ( " :> ! ( ( ( : ( ( ! @ # ) 2 R ( $ ( , • " C • ! • ( ( + @
Page 11 • = " + % 2 B ( ( = • ( ( " • • ( ( ( ) + ( ( ( ! ( :! ( 5 ( ( ) + ! ( 9 = ( ( 1 M ) > " = ( " % '&#( 7%.6%7:4%/' !( # < - & 0A ) ) * 6 + ( ) R / 3 $>46A <+@ 2 ( = 0 + ) > ( ( .. R 3 4 ( ( ( 6( $ ( ( ( ( ( ( " )
Page 12 ( . ( / ( $ R ) ( ( ( ( 6( ( ( + : ( $> 5 1 4 > R ) > " = : . '&#( 767:4 -# ((-(+ # # ((-(+ - ) ( ( > ( " 3 4 " * + <+@ $ ( ( ( ? :+ #%;;!$ = ( (( = ( ! ( ( ( "( " @ ( % ( ( 7 ( :7 $ ( 9 ( ( ( ( ) + ) 2 R (
Page 13 $ ( , • " ( ( ( = " • ( ( ( ( • 5 :> ) ( ( ( • ( = • ( ( ) + = ( ( ( ( " $ ( 1 M > R ) > =
' / 4 '&#( ##( 4 ( ( - '& ! # !,&(('4 - 0(' , ) ( ) ) > $ ( )+ ( ( * < $ <+/ $ ( .A (: ( ) ( ; )
Page 14 ; ( $ $ R ( ( , • ( @6 6 • ( " ( • ( ( ( C ( ( ( • ( ( ( * < • ( • ( ( ( • C( " • ( ( ( ( ( ( • ( ( ( $ • #%;;!$ ( $ 9 ( & $ ( ( 1 M ( 2 # -! () =#0 # 1 M = (" :6 <
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 16 Agenda Item 7
Originator: Terry Moran
Tel: 0113 3952110
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH AND WEST
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/03473/FU – CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER CHILDREN’S HOME TO 7 BED HMO AT 35 CLAREMONT DRIVE, LEEDS, LS6 4ED
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Mr Jonathan Hall 10 August 2012 05 October 2012
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Weetwood Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: If the Panel is minded to refuse permission for the development, the following reason for refusal is suggested:
The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed change of use would result in the stock of housing accommodation being unacceptably reduced in terms of quantity and variety through loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation within the Area of Housing Mix, contrary to Policy H15 and Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This application was discussed by Members of the West Plans Panel on 13 September 2012 and again at the following meeting on 11 October 2012 (the report considered at the September meeting is appended). At the October meeting the Panel resolved to overturn the Officer recommendation and to refuse the application. Concerns were raised about the overdevelopment of HMOs in the area and the over intensive use of this site and the loss of a building that could potentially return to family accommodation.
Page 17 .
1.2 Members may recall that officers recommended approval on the basis of two main considerations. Firstly, the property was not in use as a dwelling but as a children's home - a Residential Institution within the C2 Use Class, so there was no loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation. Officers also considered that the change of use would not result in any undue loss of amenity to neighbours due to the similarity in scale of the proposal to the previous use as a Children’s Home with no significant increase in comings and goings to the site.
1.3 At the October Panel officers reported that in fact the planning permission for the use of the property as a Children's Home was subject to the following condition:
This permission shall enure only for the benefit of National Children's Homes for so long as the National Children's Homes are the owner and/or occupier of the whole site edged red on the approved plan.
1.4 This would mean that should the National Children's Home (NCH) cease to own or occupy the premises that the lawful planning use of the property would revert to Class C3 Dwelling House. The view of officers is that since the NCH are still the owners that the property retains its lawful C2 use and as such similar considerations apply. Officers also remain of the view that the size of the property would limit its attractiveness to single family occupiers, although this is not to say that it would not appeal to some family occupiers
1.5 Members however resolved to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposed use would result in the unacceptable loss of a family dwelling which would be likely to result in the proliferation of HMOs in the locality.
2.0 APPRAISAL
2.1 Officers have reviewed Members’ suggested reason for refusal and would advise Members that there would be significant difficulties in defending a refusal on appeal. The Council has no specific policy which relates to over-proliferation of HMOs and in any event there is no basis on which to define what constitutes an unacceptable proportion of HMOs in any particular area (which is also very difficult to define). Moreover, some of the nearby local residents in their objections to the application have stated that fact there in fact few HMOs in the immediate area. In view of the previous use as a children's home it is also difficult to envisage how a refusal based on impact on residential amenity could be defended.
2.2 Officers consider that there is some albeit limited scope to refuse the application on grounds of loss of a family dwelling, supported by policy H15 of the Unitary Development Plan Review.
Policy H15 of the adopted UDPR states that:
Within the area of housing mix planning permission will be granted for housing intended for occupation by students, or for the alteration, extension or redevelopment of accommodation currently so occupied where:
Page 18 i) the stock of housing accommodation, including that available for family occupation, would not be unacceptably reduced in terms of quantity and variety; ii) there would be no unacceptable effects on neighbours’ living conditions including through increased activity, or noise and disturbance, either from the proposal itself or combined with existing similar accommodation; iii) the scale and character of the proposal would be compatible with the surrounding area; iv) satisfactory provision would be made for car parking; and v) the proposal would improve the quality or variety of the stock of student housing.
2.3 Officers consider that it might be argued that the proposal is contrary to criterion (i) of Policy H15 - loss of a larger family house. Given that the previous and current lawful planning use is not as a family house however this may not be a strong case.
3.0 LEGAL ISSUES
3.1 Since the October Plans Panel meeting the applicant has submitted a legal opinion on this matter from D E Manley QC. The opinion refers to the decision of the Council to reverse the previous resolution to grant planning permission in the light of the personal planning condition referred to above. Mr Manley considers that this condition is itself unsound and may in fact be unlawful in that it refers to a body rather than an individual – contrary to the advice on the use of personal conditions in Circular 11/95. The Circular advises that where exceptionally personal conditions are used, they should refer to a named individual rather than a company as the character of the company could change. Mr Manley questions the grounds for imposing the condition in the first place and argues that in any case its existence cannot make the current planning application any less acceptable on its planning merits. Mr Manley notes that the property is currently occupied by 5 tenants, 2 young professionals and 3 students, and that the Council would have no reasonable basis on which to enforce against this use. Mr Manley considers that both refusal of the current application and enforcement action against the current use would be unreasonable and that both would be likely to be punished by an award of costs at appeal.
3.2 Mr Manley’s opinion that the personal condition is unlawful is not accepted. For this to be the case it would have to be demonstrated that the decision to impose the condition was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. Whilst it is true that Circular 11/95 advises against the use of personal conditions if a company is involved, in this case the company concerned is a national charity with its own specific charitable aims, and it is unlikely therefore that the character of that company would change in a similar way to a private company set up for profit. It is felt that the condition could be justified in policy terms.
3.3 Mr Manley’s views on the policy issues involved in consideration of the application raises the issue of the risk of costs if the Council decides to refuse the application. Members will be aware that the question of costs is not a material consideration in deciding whether to grant planning permission. However, there is a risk of costs being awarded against the Council if it acts unreasonably. Circular 3/2009 sets out the circumstances in which costs may be awarded against local planning authorities and states that there is a risk if a Council prevents development which should clearly be permitted having regard to the development plan, national policy statements and any other material considerations. Authorities will be expected to produce evidence to show clearly why the development cannot be permitted and reasons should be complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. Each reason for refusal needs to be able to be substantiated at appeal. (see conclusion below).
Page 19 4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 The view of officers remains that planning permission should be granted because, on balance, the proposed change of use to a 7 bed HMO is considered acceptable, for the reasons set out above and in the previous report. Moreover, if the application were to be refused, consideration would need to be given to enforcement proceedings involving removal of tenants already resident in the HMO. Officers consider that a refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal and that there would be a risk of an award of costs. Should members endorse the previous resolution to refuse, however, the wording at the head of this report is suggested.
Page 20 Originator: Terry Moran
Tel: 0113 3952110
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL WEST
Date: 13 th September 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/03473/FU – CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER CHILDREN’S HOME TO 7 BED HMO AT 35 CLAREMONT DRIVE, LEEDS, LS6 4ED
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Mr Jonathan Hall 10 August 2012 05 October 2012
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Weetwood Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: DEFER and DELEGATE approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified and subject to no further representations raising new material planning considerations being received prior to the expiry of the publicity period (14 th September 2012)
1. Development to be commenced within 3 years 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 3. In granting permission for this development the City Council has taken into account all material planning considerations including those arising from the comments of any statutory and other consultees, public representations about the application and Government guidance and policy as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework, and (as specified below) the content and policies within Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (RSS) and The Development Plan, the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDPR).
GP5, T2, H15, N19 Neighbourhoods for Living
On balance, the City Council considers the development would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences for the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.
Page 21 1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application is brought to Panel at the request of Ward Councillor Sue Bentley who has objected to the application on the grounds that it would have an unacceptable impact on local amenity and result in an unacceptable loss of a property suitable for family occupation.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The application is to change the use of a former Children’s Home to a 7 bed House in Multiple Occupation. No external alterations are proposed.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The site comprises a three storey building of red brick construction which is set in a substantial plot with lush vegetation on three sides. The site has two entrances, with a rear car park accessed from Claremont Road. The site is within the Headingley Conservation Area and is of a similar scale to other properties in the locality but differs significantly in terms of materials where the dominant form is of stone and slate. The site has a car park with room for approximately four vehicles off-street. 3.2 Properties within the immediate locality are typically larger residential houses, and appear to be predominantly single family houses with relatively spacious gardens.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 There have been no recent planning applications at this site.
4.2 A 2009 refusal at 88 Victoria Road in Headingley for change of use of a former Care Home to 12 bedroom HMO was allowed at Appeal, with the Inspector stating that the size and existing nature of the property was such as to not reasonably lend itself to occupancy as a single family dwelling. The inspector also noted the length of time the property had been on the market without selling. Application 09/02308/FU refers.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 There have been no pre-application discussions with regard to this site.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The application was publicised by Site Notice on 24 th August 2012.
6.2 Six letters of representation including a letter from Ward Councillor Sue Bentley and the Leeds HMO Lobby have been received. These are all objections to the proposal, on the grounds of the loss of a property suitable for family housing, highway safety, lack of off-street parking, impact on balanced communities and potential increase in anti-social behaviour.
7.0 CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES:
STATUTORY
7.1 None, due to the minor nature of the application. Page 22 NON-STATUTORY
7.2 Highway Authority – Comments will be provided to the Plans Panel at the meeting.
7.3 Neighbourhoods and Housing – No objection
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires this application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8.2 The Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy For Yorkshire and The Humber (published in May 2008), and the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (July 2006), policies as saved by direction of the Secretary of State, dated September 2007. The most relevant policies in the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan are listed below:
UDPR POLICIES:
8.3 Policy GP5 – seeks to ensure that development proposals resolve detailed planning considerations, including amenity.
8.4 Policy T2 – this aims to avoid any undue impact on highway safety.
8.5 Policy N19 – this seeks to ensure that new development should preserve and enhance areas designated as Conservation Areas
8.6 Policy H15 – this refers to the Area of Housing Mix and sets out a range of criteria aimed at promoting mixed communities
REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES:
8.7 It is not considered that the RSS has any policies of direct relevance to this application.
RELEVANT SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE:
8.8 Supplementary Planning Guidance provides a more detailed explanation of how strategic policies of the Unitary Development Plan can be practically implemented. The following SPGs are relevant and have been included in the Local Development Scheme, with the intention to retain these documents as 'guidance' for local planning purposes:
x Neighbourhoods for Living
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY:
8.9 The National Planning Policy Framework was issued at the end of March 2012 and is now a material planning consideration. The NPPF provides up to date national
Page 23 policy guidance which is focused on helping achieve sustainable development. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The basis for decision making remains that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Planning System should have a role in " supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being" (NPPF paragraph 7).
EMERGING CORE STRATEGY:
8.10 The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time.
8.11 Paragraph 5.2.22b of this document states that the factors to consider when appraising the suitability of a building for HMO use are that account should be had to the size of the dwelling, the amount of garden and private amenity space available, the location of the property and any prolonged period of vacancy.
8.12 Draft Core Strategy Policy H6 refers to development proposals for the creation of new HMO’s it refers to 5 criteria that should be considered when assessing planning applications;
i) To ensure that a sufficient supply of HMOs is maintained in Leeds , ii) To ensure that HMOs are distributed in areas well connected to employment and educational destinations associated with HMO occupants, iii) To avoid detrimental impacts through high concentrations of HMOs, which would undermine the balance and health of communities. iv) To ensure that proposals for new HMOs address relevant amenity and parking concerns. v) To avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for family occupation in areas of existing high concentrations of HMOs.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
x It is the considered view that the main issues are:
x Principle of use x Impact on neighbouring residential amenity x Amenity and living conditions for future residents x Parking provision x Area of Housing Mix
10.0 APPRAISAL:
PRINCIPLE OF USE Page 24 10.1 The application site is within walking distance of both of the Universities and is considered to offer a sustainable use of a vacant building which is in need of re- use. The site lies within an existing residential settlement which is already served by existing infrastructure capable of serving a development of the scale proposed. The proposal is not considered to result in the loss of a building suitable for occupation by a family due mainly to its large size.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
10.2 The site has previously been used as a Children’s Care Home which falls within the C2 Use Class. Such a use is likely to have generated significant comings and goings to the property with the potential for 24-hour callouts by staff on a frequent basis. The proposed conversion to a 7 bed HMO is considered to result in similar levels of activity to and from the site during the day but less so at anti-social hours as the use of the property will be purely residential rather than offering counselling or support. As such, it is considered that overall levels of activity will be on a par with, if not in fact less than previously and thus offer no undue increase impact on residential amenity.
AMENITY AND LIVING CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS
10.3 The proposed conversion provides accommodation for up to 7 residents. Each room is relatively well-lit, affording acceptable levels of privacy. As such, the accommodation is likely to be on a par with that available in the locality and therefore acceptable on balance. No new windows or external alterations are proposed as such it is not envisaged the proposal will result in any changes to the outlook, privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents.
PARKING PROVISION
10.4 The site has space for four vehicles to be parked off-street. The Highways Officer has not yet commented on the proposal however, but Officers consider that the site is in a highly sustainable location with easy access to frequent bus services and that there are no current waiting restrictions for on-street parking. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to parking provision.
AREA OF HOUSING MIX 10.5 This policy states that within the area of housing mix planning permission will be granted for housing intended for occupation by students, or for the alteration, extension or redevelopment of accommodation currently so occupied where: x The stock of housing accommodation, including that available for family occupation, should not be unacceptably reduced in terms of quantity and variety; x There would be no unacceptable effects on neighbours’ living conditions including through increased activity, or noise and disturbance, either from the proposal itself or combined with existing housing similar accommodation; x The scale and character of the proposal should be compatible with the surrounding area; x Satisfactory provision should be made for car parking x The proposal should improve the quality or variety of the stock of student housing; In response to the above points:
Page 25 x The site was previously used as a Children’s Home (C Use Class). Although such a use may appear on face value to be a residential use, the definition of C2 is very different from a C3 use, being defined as a use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need. As such, there will be no loss of existing family housing accommodation; x It is considered that the levels of activity produced by 7 residents will be on a par with that previously generated by the use of the building as a Children’s Home where is it acknowledged that there would have been occasional call- outs and impromptu visits to and from the site by staff and callers. x There are no external additions or extensions to the property. As such, the proposal has no impact on the existing scale or character. x The site has 4 dedicated off-street parking spaces, with the site considered to be in a highly sustainable location with no current waiting or parking restrictions in place. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable on balance with regard to parking provision. x The proposed bedrooms within the HMO and the associated living space would have adequate levels of light and are of a reasonable size. The scheme is thus considered to comply with this element of the policy .
11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 On balance, the proposed change of use of this property to a 7 bed HMO is considered acceptable. The site is located in an area with a low number of HMO’s and as such will contribute to a mix of accommodation which can help create balanced communities. It is therefore considered that the proposal will prove beneficial through the bringing back into use of a vacant property in the Conservation Area, and that the scale of shared housing within the scheme is such as to not result in any undue harm. Members are therefore recommended to approve the scheme subject to the conditions set out at the head of this report.
Background Papers: Application and history files. Certificate of Ownership.
Page 26 12/03473/FU
WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 27 SCALE : 1/1500 ° This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 8
Originator: Mathias Franklin
Tel: 011322 77019
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH & WEST
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/02491/OT - Outline application for residential development and retail store at Victoria Road, Headingley
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Chartford Homes And 03.07.2012 02.10.2012 Holbeck Land
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Headingley Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Headingley Conservation Area and would adversely affect the setting of the neighbouring listed building. The harm arises due to the creation of a new access road, loss of protected trees (provisional TPO), loss of a historic boundary wall and also due to the siting and scale and massing of the retail unit and apartment building. As such the proposal is contrary to policies GP5, BD5, LD1, N19 and N12 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and the guidance within Neighbourhoods for Living SPG and the Hyde Park and Headingley Neighbourhood Design Statement and the Conservation Area Appraisal for Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design and the protection of heritage assets.
2. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the LPA to adequately assess the impact of the new internal access road and associated infrastructure and how these elements of the proposed development would relate to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the neighbouring listed building. As such the proposal is contrary to policy GP5 of the adopted Leeds unitary Page 29 Development Plan (Review) 2006. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design and the protection of heritage assets.
3. The indicative masterplan shows proposed terraced rows of dwellings being sited in close proximity to protected trees (provisional TPO) located on the boundary with Back Chestnut Grove and on the boundary with Ash Grove. The proposed siting of the dwellings would likely result in the loss of trees through the construction of the dwellings or through long term pressure to fell or substantially prune these trees which make an important contribute to visual amenity and local character. As such the proposal is contrary to policies GP5, LD1 and N12 of the adopted Leeds unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design and the protection of heritage assets.
4. The proposed areas of public open space as shown on the indicative masterplan are not considered to be well sited. The area of public open space located to the rear of the gardens of plots 19-21 is particularly poor as it is covered in trees, the land is sloping on all sides and it is also not overlooked sufficiently by proposed or existing dwelling. As such the proposal is contrary to policies GP5, LD1 and N12 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design
5. The proposed retail and apartment building as shown on the indicative masterplan would due its height, length, siting, design and scale result in an over bearing and dominant form of development which would be detrimental to the amenity of the residents of No 4,6,8 and 10 Ash Grove. As such the proposal is considered contrary to contrary to policies GP5, BD5, N12 and N13 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and the guidance contained within Neighbourhoods for Living SPG. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design
6. The proposed retail unit would be reason of its siting in close proximity to residential properties on Ash Grove result in noise and disturbance concerns by reason of comings and goings of customers to the detriment of residential amenity. As such the proposal is contrary to policies GP5 of the adopted Leeds unitary Development (Review) 2006. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the need to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;
7. The proposed development fails to adequately provide for greenspace in accordance with policy N2 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and the SPG4. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on the importance of good design
8. The proposed development fails to adequately provide for affordable housing in accordance with the interim affordable housing policy 2012 and adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 policies H11, H12 and H13 and the SPG3. The development is also contrary to guidance in the NPPF on provision of affordable housing
Page 30 1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application is brought to Panel at the request of Ward Councillor Martin Hamilton and also due to the level of community interest in the application.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The application is submitted in Outline with all matter reserved except for access.
2.2 The indicative masterplan shows 25 new houses arranged in 6 terraced rows. These dwellings would be two storey houses. The masterplan also shows a new building fronting Victoria Road and running parallel to Back Ash Grove. This building would be 3 storeys in height with an undercroft car park for the apartments located below, effectively creating 4 levels within the building. This building would house the retail unit on the ground floor with 2 levels of apartments above. A surface car park with 14 spaces for shoppers is proposed at the rear of the building. Two areas of public open space are also proposed. One area is located to the rear of the neighbouring listed building and the other area is located adjacent to the rear of the terraced row of two storey flats on Ash Grove.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The site is the swimming pool, sports hall and playing field of the former Leeds Girls High School. The site is rectangular in shape and is bounded by Victoria Road to the north. To the east and west boundaries of the site are located residential properties which back onto the site. To the south is located a new build block of 3-4 storey flats and a lock up garage compound.
3.2 The site is partially within the Headingley Conservation Area. The Headingley conservation area partially projects into the site from Victoria Road and includes the trees on the frontage, the stone boundary wall, the existing access location and the front half of the swimming pool building. The playing field and sports hall building are not within the conservation area. To the north east of the site on Victoria Road is a grade II listed building. This building adjoins the application site. It is currently in residential accommodation as flats. This building is a two storey brick and slate Georgian villa set back form the highway with a modest but attractive frontage curtilage.
3.3 There is a substantial change in levels from Victoria Road immediately into the site of approximately 3metres fall within the first 11 metres of the site from Victoria Road. Within the site the playing field slopes away gently to the southern boundary of the site. On the edges of the site adjoining Ash Grove and Back Chestnut Grove are located existing trees which have the benefit of a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
3.4 The character of the area is predominantly residential with dense rows of Victorian terraces as the main defining character, with mature trees and boundary treatments visible along Victoria Road, there are some post war houses and flatted schemes also around the site. There are some commercial uses in the locality and Hyde Park Corner is within 300 metres of the Victoria Road entrance to the site.
Page 31 4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 08/04218/OT (current application site) - Outline application for residential use. Withdrawn 2009.
4.2 08/04217/CA (main school site) seeks Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of a number of buildings used by Leeds Girls High School on the main school site. Allowed on appeal.
4.3 Applications 08/04219/FU and 08/04220/LI (main school site) for full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for the conversion and extension of Rose Court to form 12 apartments. Allowed on appeal
4.4 Application 08/04216/FU (main school site) for full planning permission for the conversion and extension of the Main School Building to form 32 dwellings and the conversion of the stable block to form 3 dwellings. Dismissed on appeal.
4.5 08/04214/OT: (main school site) Outline Application for residential development. Dismissed on appeal.
4.6 12/1236/FU: (main school site) Outline application for residential development and Full application for conversion of Main school building to apartments. Approved August 2012. Decision notice pending issue on completion of Section 106 Agreement.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 The application has been the subject of pre-application discussions and presentations with the local community and ward councilor before submission. No discussions with the Local Planning Authority were done prior to submission of the application.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The application has been publicised by means of site notices and press advert. Members may recall the extensive planning history associated with this site and the Main School site and also Ford House Gardens. Over 1250 objections were received to the planning applications in 2008. The majority of these objections referred to the loss of this application site to housing. There have been 110 objections received to the current application and 2 further letters of representation.
6.2 The following issues have been raised:
x Objection to the loss of N6 protected playing pitches and building. x No need for new housing due to vacant properties in the locality x Objection to the retail unit due to impact on existing local shops x Loss of trees and historic boundary wall x Impact on highway safety and car parking x Scale of retail building inappropriate for the area x Harm to the conservation area and the listed building x The community had access to the facilities at this site and their loss would be harmful to health and well being of the community Page 32 x Loss of open space harmful to amenity x The site should be compulsory purchased for community use x The development does not accord with the Olympic legacy agenda x 5 local primary schools would like to use the facilities x Contrary to NPPF (various paragraphs cited) x Over development of the site x Too many houses proposed x Harm to amenity from the comings and going of the retail store x The existing facilities could be brought back into beneficial use and are not beyond repair. x Lack of football pitches in the area for local teams to use. Also lack of training facilities. Republica F.C wants to collaborate with community groups to develop the site as a sports facility.
6.3 Councillors Hamilton, Illingworth, Walshaw, Jerry Harper, Mulherin and Atha have all objected to the applications. The following issues have been raised by the Councillors: x The site is in a densely populated area which has a poor provision of sports and recreation facilities. x The scheme is contrary to para 74 of the NPPF x The loss of greenspace is harmful to the area x The community has had access to the swimming pool, sports hall and the playing pitch. x The loss of playing facilities is harmful to the local residents and primary schools. x Contrary to the Olympic Legacy x Health and Social Care Act 2012 is a new material planning consideration that should be afforded substantial weight in the determination of this application. x The HaSCA2012 accords with the City Priority Plan to make sure the people whoa re the poorest improve their health the fastest. x This area suffers from poor health including high rates of diabetes and obesity. x Contrary to para 73 of NPPF. x The development will exacerbate existing highway and accessibility problems x The retail unit would be harmful to the conservation area. x There is no housing demand for new build in the area evidence by a recent study by UNIPOL demonstrating that students are moving out of the old housing stock towards new build accommodation. x Kings Camp used the facilities in the summer and Easter between 2005-2007. They used the facilities for roughly 29 days per year and had roughly 40-60 children attend per day. They offered included sports such as football, hockey, cricket, basketball, benchball, dodgeball as well as arts and crafts activities, drama games, treasure hunt games etc. x The development is over intensive for the site. x The greenspace offered is inadequate for the development of this size. x The convenience store will harm local businesses x The proposed access is problematic. x The design of the convenience store is not in keeping with the area. x The fact the community had access to the facilities prior to them closing is a change in circumstances from the Main School site application and Inquiry. The Inspectors decision does not carry the same weight as previously.
Page 33 6.4 Hilary Benn MP and Greg Mulholland MP have both objected to the application. They raise the following issues. x Loss of playing fields and sports hall in an area in which local schools could make good use of them. x Development is too intensive with too many houses proposed on a small site x New homes will exacerbate problems in a very densely populated area x Negative impact on local businesses. x Already 2 national food retailers in the local area x UNIPOL report highlights empty properties in the area x New facilities at Alwoodley Gates has not re-provided for the students. For examples the swimming pool has not been replaced. x The proposal would deprive the area of greenspace. x The area needs sporting facilities to improve public health. The proposals doe not meet this need for the area x The area has higher than average levels of child obesity x The swimming pool could be restored as a sports centre at cheaper costs than the figures for repairing the swimming pool.
6.5 The Friends of Woodhouse Moor, Open XS Cluster of schools, Cardigan Triangle Community Association, South Headingley Community association and Leeds Civic Trust objected to the application and they raise the following issues: x 5 primary schools in the area need an extra 40,846sq.m of space to comply with School Premises Regulations. 3 of the primary schools are without any playing fields at all. x Contrary to Olympic spirit and legacy. x Detrimental to health and improving obesity x Woodhouse Moor should not be used to compensate for the loss of playing fields from this application. Using Woodhouse Moor would result in a net loss of open recreation space, that according to Council's own 2009 "A Parks and Green Space Strategy for Leeds", is already the most intensively-used urban park in Leeds, and the second-most-visited. x We are concerned at the increase of housing within this already densely- populated area and the loss of green space and playing space of which there is a shortage within Headingley and is needed by the many families with young children that are moving into the area. x The development would add to pollution problems x Increase in traffic on Victoria Road is harmful to highway safety and amenity. x The retail unit would harm the local shops x The retail unit is too big and out of character with the conservation area x The retail unit would cause noise problems in the area x The loss of playing fields is contrary to para 70 and 74 of NPPF x 34 objectors voted at the community meeting held by the developers to reject the development of 48 people who attended the meeting x No pre-application discussions with LPA x Civic Trust’s concerns for this proposal lie in its relationship to the recently approved (May 2012) Conservation Area Appraisal for Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor. x The Conservation Area Appraisal also makes particular reference to the fact that stone walls and stone gate piers are part of the character of the area and should be retained and restored. It should be noted that there is a stone boundary wall along the Victoria Road frontage which continues in front of the adjoining listed building. It is essential that it be retained and that any building fronting Victoria
Page 34 Road be set back allowing tree planting in front to add to the mature treescape along Victoria Road and to mirror the setting of the adjoining listed building.
6.6 The Leeds HMO Lobby and Headingley Development Trust have made the following representations about the application. x Since the development goes over the threshold of eligible units, the Trust understands that it will be liable to a contribution to affordable housing provision, under a Section 106 Agreement. The Trust wishes to recommend that that this contribution takes the form of a commuted sum, spent locally in consultation with Ward members. x a commuted sum is clearly identified as one of three options in the Council's current SPG3 on Affordable Housing and also, more extensively, in the draft SPD on Affordable Housing of 2008. It is also explicitly identified as an option in national policy, in the National Planning Policy Framework, where paragraph 50 says, “To deliver a wide choice of quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership, and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should ... where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.” One thing the Area of Housing Mix needs (by definition) is 'more effective use of the existing housing stock' in order to 'create a mixed and balanced community.' x This approach was agreed at the Main school site in August 2012. x A condition should be added to ensure the properties are built as C3 dwellings.
6.7 The Joint Director of Public Health and the Consultant in Public Health Head of Healthy Living & Health Inequalities of NHS Airedale Bradford and Leeds have submitted the following comments:
“The Leeds City Priority Partnership Plan includes priority indicators leading to improved health and wellbeing. These include increased healthy life expectancy for all, and reduction in the differences in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy between communities. Achieving these outcomes will be a measure of the success of actions taken across the whole business of Leeds City Council and partners.
This has been re-enforced by the new Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) Section 12. This states that each local authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area. Planning policies and planning decisions are not exempted from this new mandatory requirement.
The Chestnut Avenue/Victoria Rd playing fields are situated in the centre of a residential area that houses people living with greater socio-economic disadvantage than the average for Leeds. The consequent impact of this disadvantage is to increase the physical and mental health problems that affect the local population, and ultimately lead to higher levels of premature mortality.
The presence of the urban green space provided by the playing fields can impact positively on the health of the local population in many ways. Proximity and accessibility of green spaces to residential areas leads to: - increased overall levels of physical activity across age groups which contribute to the prevention of many health problems such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, some cancers and osteoporosis Page 35 - improved mental health and well-being providing effective relief from everyday stress, improved self esteem, and alleviation from anxiety and depression - increased opportunities for education, social inclusion and cohesion by supplying space for social mixing, creating networks and relationships. Playing in local green spaces helps children to develop intellectually and learn about social interaction - a contribution in reducing flood risk, reducing atmospheric pollution and traffic/residential noise
Whilst the site has apparently not been available to the public this does not mean that this amenity cannot be made available to the public in the future. This will provide a visible and useable urban green space contributing to the health and wellbeing of the community.
The availability of the green space provided by Chestnut Avenue/Victoria Rd playing fields should be allocated as central when considering the needs of this community”.
7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
7.1 Highways – Require further minor revisions to the revised layout but do not object in principle to the development, mix of uses or the new access.
7.2 Mains Drainage – In principle no objections. Conditions to cover surface water drainage would be required
7.3 Environmental Health – No objections to residential development. The impact of noise from the surrounding area on the proposed residential dwellings would need to be considered to protect the amenity of future residents. In respect of the retail unit consideration should be given to the siting of plant and machinery and the Development Department may want to condition any permission with regards to opening hours and the hours for delivery, loading and unloading. Consideration should also be given to the proposed scheme for lighting.
7.4 Metro – Supports the use of metrocards for the development and request a contribution of £14,792.25.
7.5 Sport England – No objections to the development proposals. They note the previous appeal decision and consider that the main users of the facilities the students of LGHS have been re-provided for at Alwoodley Gates. They also note that the community had some access to the facilities and Sport England's comments on this matter are as follows:
“The local community action group has however found evidence about the site being used by an organisation called ‘Kings Camps’, who run school holiday activity schemes, and a netball club, who used the sports hall for training. Firstly dealing with Kings Camps, we understand this organisation operates from a range of sites across Leeds and offers sport and activity sessions during the summer and Easter holidays. It is understood they made use of the playing field at the application site before the school closed. The organisation charges commercial rates for this service which is provided outside local authority support or any support from GSAL or former LGHS. We note that this offered a very limited community use and that children attending would have come from a far wider catchment that that of the local community. It is interesting to note that the closure of the LGHS site has not stopped this business operating in north Leeds. Not only is the Alwoodley GSAL site listed as a previous venue, Page 36 Leeds University (0.8 miles from the application site) and Leeds Metropolitan University campus at Beckets Park in Headingley (2 miles from the application site) are both current venues listed for Kings Camps sessions. The action group have also made contact with Fusion netball club who used the sports hall on the LGHS site and have records of booking invoices dating from 2008. When the LHGS site closed the club moved to another private school site, Woodhouse Grove, over 7 miles away. While this appears to demonstrate some club competitive sports use of the application site, (as yet not substantiated by the applicant) it does not show entirely that the facilities at GSAL do offer an adequate replacement. It is understood the netball club moved towards Bradford as this is where their members came from. It does not appear the club considered moving to GSAL because of this, even though it is closer at 5.8 miles away. Conclusion Therefore we conclude that GSAL has superior facilities and management arrangements compared with LGSH. LGSH site had some very limited community access and this has in two instances been migrated to GSAL. The netball club appear to have migrated to nearer their customer base and Kings Camps have found other sites in the north city area, which questions whether both were meeting local needs in any case. While local people cannot walk to GSAL as they could LGHS it is evident that they only had very limited access to this site. The vast majority of users of the LGHS site, the pupils, have moved with the facilities to GSAL as previously stated. Other user groups have either migrated to GSAL or found other venues in North Leeds and Bradford. Outside this application there is evidence of unmet demand in this area of the city, something the council should be planning to resolve strategically. Sport England has offered on various occasions to assist the council in developing solutions to this by building on work produced in the 2008 open space, sport and recreation assessment by working with sport national governing bodies and developing an action plan to resolve the deficits. However it must be acknowledged that this is something outside the scope of this application. While the planning inspector at the appeal considered the pupils the sole users of the facilities, who moved with the sports provision to the new school; we have considered the nature of the very limited community users and consider that they have found adequate replacement facilities at GSAL or elsewhere. Taking the above into account we consider this can meet all elements of E4 and Sport England does not raise a statuary objection to this application”.
7.6 Sport England has however requested a developer contribution towards sports facilities of £75,257.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 As required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 this application has to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber adopted in May 2008 and the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).
8.2 The most relevant Policies in the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan are outlined below.
Policy GP5 refers to detailed planning considerations and states that development proposals should seek to avoid loss of amenity. Policy GP7: Guides the use of planning obligations. Policy BD5 refers to new building design Policy N2 refers to the provision of greenspace Page 37 Policy N6: Protected Playing Pitches Policies N12 and N13 refer to the good urban design considerations and placing making Policy S2 refers to the protection of the vitality and viability of town centres. Policy S9 refers to out of centre small scale retail development. Policies T2 and T24 seek to maintain adequate vehicle access and levels of vehicle parking provision with no undue detriment to other highway users. Policy H1: Provision for completion of the annual average housing requirement identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy. Policy H3: Delivery of housing land release. Policy H4: Residential development on non-allocated sites. Policies H11, H12 and H13 Affordable Housing. Policy LD1: Criteria for landscape design. Policies N14 to N22: Listed buildings and conservation areas. Policy N19, Conservation Area assessment for new build and extensions
SPG3: Affordable Housing; SPG4: Greenspace Relating to New Housing Development; SPG13: Neighbourhoods for Living; Street design guide SPD, Headingley and Hyde Park NDS Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Conservation Area Appraisal
8.3 National Planning Policy Guidance:
The National Planning Policy Framework came into effect on 27 th March 2012, and replaces the advice provided in Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements. The aim of this document is to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. Local planning authorities are expected to “plan positively” and that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development:
“At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.” (para 14). Development which fails to give adequate regard to heritage assets and good design is not however considered to be sustainable development.
8.4 The Government ’s pursuit of sustainable development involves seeking a wide variety of positive improvements including:
1. making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages 2. replacing poor design with better design 3. improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure
8.5 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states:
“Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering Page 38 edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”.
8.6 Paragraph 204 refers to the CIL tests which all Planning Obligations should be assessed against. Paragraph 56 refers to the impact of good design as being a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 58 bullet point 3 refers to the desire to optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development. Paragraph 131 refers to the requirement of Local Planning Authorities to take account of:
x the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; x the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and x the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
8.7 Paragraphs 69 and 74 deal with matters relating to health and well being and existing recreation facilities. Paragraph 74 states that: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: Ɣ an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or Ɣ the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or Ɣ the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.
Emerging Core Strategy The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time.
8.8 Nearby Hyde Park Corner is designated as a 'Lower Order Local Centre ' in the centres hierarchy set out in Policy P1 of the Draft Publication version of the Core Strategy.
8.9 Draft Policy P4 sets out development guidelines for shopping parades and small scale standalone food stores serving local neighbourhoods and communities.
8.10 Emerging Core Strategy Policy P8 sets out the thresholds above which a sequential assessment and impact assessment are required for retail proposals. The amount of retail floorspace proposed falls below this. Policy P8 indicates that all centres within 500 metres walking distance of the application site should be used for the sequential assessment
Page 39 9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
9.1 The following main issues have been identified:
x Development of Playing Pitches and the principle of residential development x Retail Development x Impact on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed building x Highway considerations x Landscaping/trees x Residential amenity x Section 106 contributions
10.0 APPRAISAL:
10.1 The site comprises some previously developed areas where the existing buildings and associated hard standings are sited and an open grassed area The whole site is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan as N6 Playing pitches. The site frontage from Victoria Road up to half of the swimming pool building is also within the Headingley Conservation Area. In assessing the principle of the development there are three main issues to consider. Firstly whether development on protected playing pitches and buildings is acceptable; secondly whether the site is then suitable for redevelopment for residential use and whether the creation of a retail unit outside of a defined local or town centre is acceptable. Taking each issue in turn:
Development of Playing Pitches and the principle of residential development
10.2 The proposal to redevelop land designated as a protected playing pitch is perhaps the most contentious and of greatest public interest. As with the recent application at the Main school site across Victoria Road, this site was part of the former Leeds Girls High School (LGHS). The site was private land and the main users of the facilities were the pupils of LGHS. It has been shown by the applicant during this application and the previous application at the Main school site that the pupils of LGHS have had their sporting facilities re-provided and enhanced at the Alwoodley Gates site. Accordingly therefore the exceptions test of policy N6 would be considered satisfied. This is the same approach that Leading Counsel advised the Council to adopt during the consideration of the main school site application. It is also the approach the planning inspector at the Inquiry in 2010 took when he concluded that redevelopment of the main school site's protected playing pitches was also acceptable. There are two changes in planning circumstances that are considered material to the determination of this current planning application that differ from the applications and Inquiry at the Main School site. They are that there was public access of the facilities at this site and secondly the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has come into effect. Taking each issue in turn.
10.3 Councillor Illingworth has raised the issue of the implications for the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and in particular section 12 of the Act to be taken into account in the determination of the current application. It is agreed that the site is located within a high density area where the existing sporting facilities, except for Woodhouse Moor, are in short supply. It is also agreed that the local population has high rates of obesity and those with South Asian ancestry in the community suffer the effects of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a greater degree. By way of background, the Planning Inspector in his findings of the appeals in 2011 Page 40 stated “ the tennis courts have never been available to the public and so their potential loss to development of the site cannot in itself be harmful to the health and well-being of the community ”. The Inspector's decision letter for the 2011 appeal at the former Leeds Girls High School site is an important material planning consideration in the determination of this current application. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 imposes a duty to improve public health in Section 12 and this may be a material consideration in the context of the current development proposals. The legal requirement for planning applications does however remain that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Members may recall that they considered the implications of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 when they determined to grant planning permission for the recent planning application at the Main School site reference 12/01236/FU. Members view was that as the Main school site was private facilities and had no public access that it could not be seen as having any effect upon the health and well being of the community as the community had never had access to the facilities at the Main School site.
10.4 The PPG17 open space audit carried out by the Council does identify this site as being within an area of the City which has a lack of sporting facilities and outdoor playing pitches. The application site however is private land and in this regard gives rise to similar issues to those raised in the Main School site appeal in 2011. The Inspector considered that the principle of development on the N6 designated land was justified because the facilities have been re-provided at Alwoodley Gates. In the case of the current application site, the applicants have confirmed that there were formal arrangements to allow the public to have limited use of the facilities at the Victoria Road site. These were Kings Camps who run school holiday activity schemes, Fusion netball club also used the sport hall and 3 Swimming groups also used the facilities.
10.5 There is a change in circumstances between the current application and the Main School site. There has been limited formal use of the swimming pool, the sport hall and the playing pitch by the community. Most of the community groups who used the facilities and who still operate have found new homes, e.g., Kings Camp have relocated to the LMU Carnegie and Leeds University facilities, the netball has have relocated to Woodhouse Grove school at Apperley Bridge and 2 of the 3 swimming groups have relocated to the LGHS school site at Alwoodley. It is also noted that there is formal community access arrangement to use the facilities at Alwoodley Gates which is an improvement on the previous situation at the Victoria Road site were the limited community use of the facilities was not set out in legal agreements. It is recognised that the distance between the Victoria Road site and the LGHS site at Alwoodley means that some residents of Headingley may not be able to travel to Alwoodley to use the facilities there. Sport England’s view which officers also support is that the community use aspect is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application given the limited nature of the community use and also because the previous users have found new facilities.
10.6 In the light of the above the principle of developing the site for a residential use is considered acceptable. The site is within the main urban area and in a location well served by public transport and local amenities. The local character of the area is predominantly residential. The Council has also accepted the principle of development on unallocated small greenfield sites that are located within sustainable locations and are acceptable in all other planning regards as being suitable for development for housing. Clearly the re-use of previously developed land is also acceptable in light of the above.
Page 41 Retail Development
10.7 In terms of retail policy, the site is an 'edge of centre' location lying within 300 metres of the nearest centre (Royal Park Local Centre). UDP policy S9 refers to out of centre small scale retail development proposal. This policy is the current Development Plan policy for this development. The proposed retail development is consider to comply with UDP policy S9 as there are no suitable sites in the Hyde Park Centre that are available and the proposal is not envisaged to have an impact on that centre's vitality or viability. The emerging Core strategy policies that will replace Policy S9 are also used in the assessment of the current application and are the most up to date policies which conform with the NPPF. However, they only have limited weight as the Core Strategy is yet to be examined by an Inspector. Draft Policy P8 of the Core Strategy requires that retail proposals in edge of centre or out of centre locations (200-372 sqm gross floor area) within residential areas should be subject to a sequential assessment with a catchment area of 500 metres walking distance. The application proposes a gross internal area of 372 sqm (280 sqm net). Royal Park Local Centre and Hyde Park Corner lie within 500m distance of the site. The applicant undertook a sequential assessment of a 5 minute drive time, significantly in excess of the P8 requirement. None of the sites identified in the assessment were sequentially preferable to the application site. Draft Policy P4 of the Core Strategy relates specifically to stand alone food stores serving local neighbourhoods and communities: "Proposals for stand alone small scale food stores up to 372 sqm gross within residential areas, will be acceptable in principle where there is no local centre or shopping parade within a 500 metre radius that is capable of accommodating the proposal within or adjacent to it..." There are no sequentially preferable sites available within either the Hyde Park or Royal Park Local Centre boundary, however the application site lies adjacent to the centre, which is the next sequentially preferable location after a site within the boundary of a local centre. So on the basis of draft Policy P4 and adopted UDP policy S9 the retail use within a residential area should be acceptable in principle.
Impact on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed building
10.8 The site is partially within the Headingley Conversation Area (HCA) (the site frontage and access is located within the HCA). No 63 Victoria Road is a grade II listed building and adjoins the site. There are trees on site which have been protected with a Tree Preservation Order. Trees are particularly important in the mature landscape of the area and need positive management both in the public and private green spaces. On 15th February 1984 the Headingley Conservation Area was significantly extended to include Hyde Park Corner, with the terraced houses around St. Augustine’s Church and Little Moor, and the area between Headingley Lane and Victoria Road, which had the same characteristics of ‘mature trees, stone buildings and stone boundary walls’ as the existing Conservation Area to the north of Headingley Lane. In May 2012 the Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor Conservation Area was created by dividing off the southern part of the Headingley Conservation Area and including areas which were not within a CA, notably Woodhouse Moor.
10.9 The site frontage has a positive impact on Victoria Road due to the existing dense tree belt and high stone boundary wall which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The neighbouring property is a grade II listed building. This building also makes a positive contribution to the street scene and local character. Its boundary treatments also compliment the application site's boundary treatment.
Page 42 10.10 The impact of creating a new access and associated road is that at least an 11 metre wide opening into the existing stone boundary wall would be created. This would be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would also adversely affect the setting of the listed building next door. The implication of the creation of a new access road would also result in the loss of all of the existing trees of the Victoria Road frontage. Again this impact is considered significantly harmful to the Conservation Area and the neighbouring listed building. The site has an existing vehicular access onto Victoria Road. Officers have discussed this access and consider there is scope to re-use the existing access, subject to some widening and improvements along with alterations to Victoria Road’s TRO’s and re-siting of the pedestrian crossing. Re-using the existing access would mean that the current siting of the retail and apartments building could not be retained.
10.11 The proposed new access road and internal road connecting to the access are substantial pieces of infrastructure and would require a large engineering operation to construct them. Due to the substantial change in levels between Victoria Road and the swimming pool building in the site substantial work would be required to construct this new road. The applicant has not supplied sufficient information to enable proper assessment of the impacts of the formation of the new access road including its appearance and impact on trees. Officers are concerned that the works required to make the new access would be likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed building.
10.12 The indicative masterplan submitted with the application is a requirement of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. Part 2 of this Order requires applicants to submit with Outline applications details of those matters reserved. The current application has all matters reserved except for access. Accordingly the indicative masterplan submitted with the current application is considered a material planning consideration against which an assessment of the approximate layout and scale of the proposed development can be made.
10.13 The proposed retail and apartments building has a footprint of between 25 and 27metres in length by 19 metres in width. The building could at its highest point measure 13metres in height when viewed from the centre of the site looking up towards Victoria Road. The building would be split over 4 levels. It would appear 3 storeys in height when viewed from Victoria Road and would step down in height towards the rear of the building. It is considered due to the buildings size, height, length and siting that it would be a form of development that is out of keeping with the street scene and the Conservation Area. The building would be visible from Victoria Road and Back Ash Grove as well as from within the site which would highlight the building's bulk and size. This building is considered harmful to the setting of the neighbouring listed building. Officers consider that the detrimental impact caused by the access and the harm caused by the siting and scale of the retail and apartments building mean this element of the scheme needs wholesale review and revision.
10.14 Guidance in the NPPF is that development that fails to adhere to the historic environment policies, because it fails to give due weight to conservation for example, is not sustainable development and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to NPPF guidance.
Page 43 Landscaping
10.15 The indicative masterplan also shows terraced rows of dwellings. Whilst the use of terraced rows is considered compatible with the local area the siting of the terraced rows in close proximity to trees on the boundary of the site is considered likely to result in pressure to fell these trees either through the construction process or from future occupiers. The trees on the edge of the site have the benefit of a provisional TPO as they have been initially assessed as not being dead, dying or dangerous and have a high visual amenity benefit. The sites owners (the Morley House Trust) who are different to the applicants have submitted an objection to the creation of the TPO. They have submitted an objection letter and also a tree survey to challenge the TPO. It is noted that the tree survey submitted by the site owners is not from the same company as the tree survey submitted by the applicants and comes to different conclusions on the health and status of the trees than the tree survey submitted by the applicants in support of the planning application. The owners tree survey downgrades the ratings of some of the trees made by the applicant's tree survey. Although there are differences between the landowners survey and the tree survey submitted by the applicants, the important trees around the Victoria Road frontage and around the side boundaries by Back Chestnut Avenue have not been downgraded below a C classification. Although Officers are considering the objection to the provisional TPO, Members are advised that Officers consider the trees in question to have high amenity value and should be retained.
10.16 The two areas of proposed public open space as shown on the indicative masterplan are considered poorly planned. The area of public open space shown behind the listed building backing onto the gardens of plots 19-22 is inappropriate and unusable due to levels issues and tree coverage. This area does not meet the requirements of usable and safe public open space. The larger area of public open space located opposite plots 12-18 and backing onto the rear gardens of the two storey flats on Ash Grove is more acceptable in terms of natural surveillance and usability.
Residential amenity 10.17 The proposed new build houses are considered likely to afford future occupiers with an acceptable level of amenity, outlook, privacy and private garden space on the whole. The parking provision for the houses is acceptable. Further information on the level of parking proposed for the flats within the retail building is still required but it is envisaged the applicant could supply this information to address this comment. As such it does not warrant a reason for refusal.
10.18 The proposed impacts of the retail and apartments building is considered likely to harm the amenity of the existing neighbouring residents who live on Ash Grove and whose properties face the proposed building. The properties on Ash Grove would be around 18 metres from their rear elevations to the side elevation of the proposed building. Due to the siting of the proposed building screening the side elevations would be difficult. In addition due to the change in levels the concerns over the over bearing and dominance of the side elevation and rear elevation would be exacerbated.
10.19 The proposed retail unit would generate some concerns over the comings and goings in relation to residential amenity considerations. The car parking provision and servicing arrangements have been assessed by highways officers and they do not object to the number of spaces or the servicing proposals. Most of these issues could be adequately addressed through the use of planning conditions controlling hours of use, deliveries, sound insulation etc. However, the relationship of the Page 44 proposed retail building to the existing residents on Ash Grove may create conflict in terms of customers coming to the store which is sited next to residential back gardens and potentially creating noise nuisance and disturbance and generating parking in the side street, Back Ash Grove. As such a reason for refusal in relation to residential amenity concerns from the operation of the retail store is proposed.
Section 106 10.20 The proposal triggers requirements for affordable housing and greenspace contributions. Although the developer has offered to provide these in their Heads of Terms submission the developer has not provided a signed S106 agreement to ensure these elements are delivered. Should a revised application be submitted that could be supported or if the applicants go to appeal a Section 106 Agreement could be drawn up and completed to deliver these policy requirements. Subject to this happening the reasons for refusal 7 and 8 in the recommendation box above could be overcome.
11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 Officers recognise that this application is very sensitive and very important to the local community and very careful consideration has been given as to whether grounds for refusal could be substantiated in relation to the loss of the protected playing pitches and buildings. The principle of an out of centre retail development has similarly been carefully appraised. Officers are of the clear view however that refusal is not justified on these grounds and could not be defended on appeal. The proposed development is nevertheless considered unacceptable on the grounds set out above and refusal is recommended accordingly.
Background Papers: Application file; Certificate of Ownership.
Page 45 12/02491/OT
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 46 SCALE : 1/1500 ° Agenda Item 9
Originator: Mathias Franklin
Tel: 011322 77019
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH & WEST
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/02712/FU - Part three storey part four storey block of 18 cluster flats (112 rooms), retail store at ground floor, associated parking and landscaping at Land at Woodhouse street, Woodhouse, Leeds,
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Mr Kissun Parmar 03.07.2012 08.11.2012 PPA
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Hyde Park & Woodhouse Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Panel is minded to refuse permission for the development, the following reasons for refusal are suggested:
1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would constitute an over-development of the site and that by reason of its scale and massing it would be out of character with the local area to the detriment of the street scene and visual amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GP5, BD5, N12 and N13 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and the Neighbourhoods for Living SPG, and also contrary to the guidance set out in the NPPF on the importance of good design.
2. The proposal fails to provide adequately for Greenspace is accordance with policy N2 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and SPG4 (Greenspace).
Page 47 1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 Members will recall that they discussed this planning application at the previous Panel meeting of 11 October 2011. The report to that Panel is appended. The recommendation was for approval but the Panel resolved to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and harm to the character and appearance of the area resulting from the scale and massing of the building. This resolution is reflected in the suggested reason for refusal above.
1.2 The second suggested reason relates UDPR policy for Greenspace provision in new residential developments. Had the application been approved, this would have been addressed through the developer making a contribution towards improving greenspace in the locality and this would be secured through a S106 agreement. In the absence of the S106 agreement, there is no means of securing the application and the application should therefore be refused on this ground also.
1.3 The Panel is advised that the applicant has met with officers since the October Panel meeting to discuss the reason for refusal and is exploring a revised scheme that aims to address the concerns over the scale and massing and the intensity of the of the development. The developer intends to re-engage with the Ward Members and the Panel and present a revised scheme to Panel for a pre-application presentation in the near future.
Background Papers: Application file; Certificate of Ownership. 11 th October 2012 Panel Report.
Page 48 Originator: Mathias Franklin
Tel: 011322 77019
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH & WEST
Date: 11 TH OCTOBER 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/02712/FU - Part three storey part four storey block of 18 cluster flats (112 rooms), retail store at ground floor, associated parking and landscaping at Land at Woodhouse street, Woodhouse, Leeds,
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Mr Kissun Parmar 03.07.2012 08.11.2012 PPA
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Hyde Park & Woodhouse Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION:
Defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and the conditions listed below. The Section 106 agreement shall include: 1. Off site greenspace contribution of £40,660.27 2. Upgrading of one existing bus stops to provide a shelter and real time display. Total contribution £20,000.00
List of planning conditions: 1. Commencement of development within 3 years. 2. Approval of plans 3. Samples of all external walling, roofing and surfacing materials to be approved prior to commencement of development 4. Submission of landscape scheme and implementation schedule 5. Tree protection measures for existing trees 6. Replacement tree planting if landscaping fails within 5 years of planting. 7. The development shall not be occupied until a scheme for Woodhouse Street, Page 49 Holborn Approach and surrounding streets to restrict/prevent parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved timescales. 8. Means of access shall only be as shown on the approved plans 9. Development shall not commence until details of the proposed method of closing off and making good all existing redundant accesses to the development site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 10. Notwithstanding the details shown on approved plan no development shall take place until a plan showing sightlines of 2.4m x 70m at the junction of the retail store with Woodhouse Street and 2.4m x 43m at the junction of the residential development with Holborn Approach has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. There must be no intrusion within the sightlines greater than 1m in height above the adjacent carriageway level and this must be maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the development. 11. Prior to commencement details of refuse, cycle and motorcycle facilities to be submitted and approved by the LPA. 12. Development shall not be occupied until a Car Park and Servicing Management Plan (inc. timescales) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13. Development shall not commence until details of access, storage, parking, loading and unloading of all contractors' plant, equipment, materials and vehicles (including) workforce parking) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be provided for the duration of construction works. 14. No construction operation shall take place before 07.30 hours on weekdays and 08.00 hours on Saturdays or after 19.00 hours on weekdays and 13.00 hours on Saturdays with no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays 15. Contaminated land conditions. 16. Surface water drainage strategy to be submitted prior to the commencement and implanted in accordance with approved details. 17. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. 18. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for crime reduction opportunities from the detailed design and material of the building shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. 19. The development shall submit a pre-commencement report outlining its BREEAM rating then the development shall be constructed in accordance with this assessment. The development shall aim to be rated ‘excellent’ on completion. 20. The combined noise from fixed plant shall not exceed a rating level as defined by BS4142 by more than 5dB(A) below the lowest background (L90) during which the plant will operate. Details of said plant shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to occupation. 21. Delivery hours of the retail unit including refuse collection shall be restricted to after 0800 hours and before 1900 hours Monday to Saturday with no deliveries on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 22. The hours of operation of the retail units shall be restricted to 0700 hours to 2300 hours. 23. The residential development shall only be occupied by students in full time education.
In granting permission for this development the City Council has taken into account all material planning considerations including those arising from the comments of any statutory and other consultees, public representations about the application and Government Guidance and Policy as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework and (as specified below) the content and policies within Supplementary Planning Page 50 Guidance (SPG) and The Development Plan consisting of The Yorkshire and Humber Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (RSS) and the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDPR).
GP5, BD5, N2, N12, N13, T2, T24, S2, S9, LD1, H15 Neighbourhoods for Living SPG
On balance, the City Council considers the development would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences for the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application is presented to Plans Panel due to the large number of representations received and the community significance of the development.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The proposal is for a mixed use development comprising a retail unit (289sq.m gross floor area of which 195sqm will be used for sales area) and 112 bedroom student accommodation arranged in cluster flats.
2.2 The proposal is for a new building on the site. The building would be part three and part four storeys. The retail element would front Woodhouse Street and would have its own car parking and vehicular access from Woodhouse Street. Above the retail unit would be two floors of residential accommodation. The building would project from Woodhouse Street through the site towards Holborn Approach. This central section of the building would be four storeys in height when viewed from the courtyard elevation facing Midgley Gardens. The Holborn Approach elevation would be four storeys in height. The building would be partially sunken into the site to reduce its overall height in the street scene. The building would appear as three storeys in height when viewed from Holborn approach and Welsey Court. The roof form is pitched with small dormers.
2.3 The building would be constructed out of brick and render to match the local area. The roof would be slate coloured tiles. The shop frontage would have a contemporary appearance utilising glazing in the main ground floor elevations.
2.4 20 Car parking spaces would be provided for the retail element and delivery vehicles would enter the site and exit the site form Woodhouse Street only. The student accommodation would have its own 16 space car park contained within its own courtyard which would be accessed via Holborn Approach through a port-culis drive.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The site is located in a predominantly residential area however there are a parade of shops, a church and public house and a community centre located close by on Woodhouse Street. Opposite the site on Woodhouse Street are rows of red brick Victorian terraces, many with large dormers. Adjoining the site is a terrace row which has been ‘sawn in half’ and presents a blank gable to the site, except for one bath
Page 51 room window. A church bounds the site separated by Welsey Court. Opposite the site on Holborn Approach is post-war two storey housing.
3.2 The site currently is vacant and has largely overgrown with self seeding trees and vegetation. There are no TPO trees on site but there are TPO trees located on Midgley Gardens adjoining the site. The site was once the home of the Ace of Clubs nightclub but the building was demolished over 10 years ago. The site is not allocated within the UDP but is located within the defined Area of Housing Mix. The site is roughly 400metres from the nearest defined centre, Hyde Park Corner.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 12/02931/FU - Retail unit with storage area office and car parking. Pending consideration
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 The application has been the subject of pre-application discussions before submission. The applicant also held a community consultation event (06.03.12 & 07.03.12) in Woodhouse Street community centre. They advertised this event by placing notices on 4 lamposts and sending 50 residents who live directly around the site letters. A total of 28 residents attended over the two days. The applicants state that the overwhelming response to the proposals were positive.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The application has been publicised by means of site notices;. There have been a total of 39 representations received of which 32 are in support and 7 are objecting. There have also been petition with 148 signatures of support and 157 generic letters of support individually signed. The Friends of Woodhouse Moor have produced two petitions with 51 and 25 objections respectively.
6.2 The following issues have been raised:
1 The stated history regards the use of this land. 2 History of the applicant 3 Insufficient parking 4 Volume of traffic in a residential area 5 Rights of way x 3 6 Noise pollution 7 Environmental health 8 Increase of motor related crime and theft. 9 Change to community social structure 10 We are supportive of the present local community shops and do not see a need for another similar or larger store. 11. Out of scale with the local area, 12. Overbearing on neighbours 13. The site should be turned into a public garden, 14. Landscaping plan is poor 15. Increase in crime
Page 52 6.3 North Hyde Park Neighbourhood association object to the application on the following grounds. 1. Increase in student numbers will harm community. 2. No need for a retail store 3. Family houses are needed, not student flats 4. Too dense a development
6.4 The letters of support make the following comments: 1. The scheme is a great idea 2. Re-use of the derelict site is good 3. Upgrading Leslie Terrace footpath and adding lighting is welcome 4. Re-using the site and improving the surrounding streets will reduce crime 5. The area will benefit from a convenience store 6. Benefit to the community 7. Will create jobs for the local community 8. Good location for students so close to the city centre and the Universities 9. Good design to the building
7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
7.1 Highways – no objections subject to conditions.
7.2 Mains Drainage – no objections subject to conditions for surface water drainage.
7.3 Environmental Health - If planning permission is to be granted this Department would recommend conditions are imposed in order to protect the amenity of the existing residential area regarding noise, delivery hours and construction.
7.4 Rights of way - there are claimed footpaths crossing the site. The developer has applied to extinguish this route. There are two other footpaths running parallel to the development site. The Wesley Court footpath will be upgraded and lit which will be funded via a Section 278 Agreement by the developer.
7.5 Yorkshire Water – N objection subject to conditions and a diversion order for the existing underground sewer that crosses the site.
7.6 Metro – Request a contribution to upgrade a bus stop on Woodhouse Street to provide Real Time Display and a shelter.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 As required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 this application has to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber adopted in May 2008 and the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).
8.2 The most relevant Policies in the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan are outlined below.
Policy GP5 refers to detailed planning considerations and states that development proposals should seek to avoid loss of amenity. Policy BD5 refers to new building design Policy N2 refers to the provision of greenspace Page 53 Policies N12 and N13 refer to the good urban design considerations and placing making Policy H15 refers to proposals for student accommodation. Policy S2 refers to the protection of the vitality and viability of town centres. Policy S9 refers to out of centre small scale retail development. Policies T2 and T24 seek to maintain adequate vehicle access and levels of vehicle parking provision with no undue detriment to other highway users.
Neighbourhoods for Living SPG.
8.3 National Planning Policy Guidance:
The National Planning Policy Framework came into effect on 27 th March 2012, and replaces the advice provided in Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements. The aim of this document is to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. Local planning authorities are expected to “plan positively” and that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development:
“At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.” (para 14).
8.4 The Government ’s pursuit of sustainable development involves seeking a wide variety of positive improvements including:
1. making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages 2. replacing poor design with better design 3. improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure
8.5 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states:
“Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”.
Emerging Core Strategy The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time.
8.6 Nearby Hyde Park Corner is designated as a 'Lower Order Local Centre ' in the centres hierarchy set out in Policy P1 of the Draft Publication version of the Core Strategy. Page 54 8.7 Draft Policy P4 sets out development guidelines for shopping parades and small scale standalone food stores serving local neighbourhoods and communities.
8.8 Emerging Core Strategy Policy P8 sets out the thresholds above which a sequential assessment and impact assessment are required for retail proposals. The amount of retail floorspace proposed falls below this. Policy P8 indicates that all centres within 500 metres walking distance of the application site should be used for the sequential assessment
8.9 Draft Corte Strategy Policy H6 refers to proposals for student developments. In particular it states:
B) Development proposals for purpose built student accommodation will be controlled: i) To help extend the supply of student accommodation taking pressure off the need for private housing to be used, ii) To avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for family occupation, Iii) To avoid excessive concentrations of student accommodation (in a single development or in combination with existing accommodation) which would undermine the balance and wellbeing of communities, iv) To avoid locations which are not easily accessible to the Universities by foot or public transport or which would generate excessive footfall through quiet residential areas.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
9.1 The following main issues have been identified:
x Principle of the development x Design, scale, siting and appearance x Neighbours amenity x Amenity of future occupiers. x Highway considerations x Landscaping x Section 106
10.0 APPRAISAL:
10.1 The site comprises previously developed land. Planning policy supports the re-use of brownfield sites in sustainable locations. The proposed retail element of the scheme is assessed against the emerging policies of the Core Strategy which deal with out of centre retail locations. The NPPF recognizes that out of centre food retail can have a positive effect in providing amenities to local communities. The scheme has been assessed against the requirements of UDP policy S9 for small scale out of centre retail development. This UDP policy will be replaced by the emerging core strategy which is in line with the NPPF. It is not envisaged that the proposal would harm the vitality and viability of the Hyde Park Corner local centre in accordance with policy S9 of the adopted UDP. The applicant has satisfactorily addressed the requirements of UDP policy S9 and draft core strategy Policies P4 and P8 in terms of the sequential assessment by demonstrating that there is no sequentially preferable site within a town centre or edge of centre location within 500m walking distance of the site. Whilst being an out of centre location, the site lies within a Page 55 relatively accessible location and relates well to other existing retail/town centre uses situated nearby albeit undesignated in terms of NPPF. The convenience store is also well located to serve the nearby residential area.
10.2 The principle of student housing is considered acceptable in this location close to the Universities. This would be an infill site and it's redevelopment would be an opportunity for investment and regeneration of the area. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of policy H15 and draft Core strategy policy H6. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the stock of housing available for students. The proposal is not in a location were a concentration of purpose built student accommodation already exists. It does not result in the loss of any existing housing suitable for occupation by a family. As will be discussed below the parking provision is acceptable for the level of accommodation being proposed and given its proximity to the universities the site is considered very sustainable. The proposal is not envisaged to harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents by reason of increased comings and goings. The proposed building does have a large footprint but has been designed to fit within the site and respond to local character in terms of detailing and materials and is not considered to be out of keeping with the local area. The design and appearance of the scheme is considered to break up the overall scale and massing of the building. The regeneration benefits to the area and the site in particular are positive.
10.2 The site is located in a predominantly residential area and sits between two clear building styles namely, the Victorian terrace rows facing the site on Woodhouse Street and the post war housing across Holborn Approach. The proposal has had regard to this local context in forming its design. The use of pitched roof and dormers which are characteristic of the area are appropriate in this context. The scale of the building at 3 and 4 storeys would be an increase in relation to neighbouring properties but as the scheme is partially sunken into the site there should only be limited views of the four storey element of the building. It is also noted that there are examples in the local area of new build four storey apartments so the development should not appear out of character. In addition the use of brick and render is an appropriate palette of materials given the sites context of red brick terraces and rendered post war housing.
10.3 The proposal is considered to provide a good street frontage to Woodhouse Lane. The use of a gable roof design will help the building fit into the street scheme. The pitched roof for the main body of the proposal and for the roof form fronting Holborn approach is considered in keeping with the diminishing scale of the post war housing. The proposed elevation fronting Holborn Approach will appear as a three storey building as the lower ground floor level is sunken and the existing road level of Holborn Approach is higher than the site. This coupled with the proposed boundary treatment should provide screening when viewed form the highway. This proposed elevation is considered in keeping with the street and should provide an attractive new street frontage. The applicant has stated that the development is aiming to deliver a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating. A planning condition to ensure that the development achieves this BREEAM rating has been attached.
10.4 The proposed bedrooms above the retail unit fronting Woodhouse Street maintains 15 metres separation distance to the existing windows located on the gable elevation of the end of the terrace rows. This distance is considered sufficient to preserve privacy given the existing windows already look out directly onto the street. The proposal maintains 12 metres separation distance from the proposed bedroom windows to the side boundary of the garden of the flats within 62 Holborn Page 56 Approach. Again this distance is considered sufficient to ensure that the rear of No.62 Holborn Approach and the garden area of this unit is not over looked. There is approximately 21 metres between the proposed front elevation of the student block and the existing elevation of the post war housing on Holborn Approach. The existing properties on Holborn Approach only have one window on the elevation facing the proposal, this is located at first floor level. As such no serious over looking or loss of privacy from the proposal is envisaged upon the existing neighbours. There is 29 metres from the proposed courtyard elevation to the boundary with Midgley Gardens. Taking account of the size and siting of the proposed development the proposal is not envisaged to result in any serious over looking or loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties or gardens.
10.5 The introduction of 112 students into the area is not considered likely to have any significant impacts on the local community. The site is self contained and the development would be a managed facility. The future occupiers would likely walk to and from the Universities and potentially into the city centre which may take them through residential streets. These routes however are well defined and given the scale of the development the likely impacts upon the community are not envisaged to be substantial from the comings and goings of the future occupiers. It is noted that some objectors are concerned with a potential increase in crime as a result of the development. The scheme has been designed to ensure that the site is secure. The layout of the scheme provides for new windows overlooking public footpaths and public spaces. Natural surveillance provides a good deterrent to opportunities to crime and in addition the upgrading and lighting of the main footpath link between Woodhouse Street and Holborn Approach is considered positive in reducing the opportunities for crime. A condition has been attached requiring the developer to submit a crime reduction plan prior to the commencement of development. This should ensure that the details of the buildings design and material should take the opportunities to reduce crime.
10.6 The proposal is considered to afford future occupiers of the student cluster flats with a good level of accommodation. The bedroom windows have been increased in size and all have a good level of natural light and outlook. The cluster flat arrangements means that future occupiers will have large kitchen/dining rooms to share in addition to en suite bedrooms. The scheme is designed to provide a reasonable amount of communal outdoor amenity space along with secure car parking, cycle and motor cycle facilities. The site is located close to local amenities, good public transport links and is in easy walking distance of the Universities, Woodhouse Moor and the City Centre.
10.7 In relation to the retail element the access has been designed to accommodate the customer and service/delivery vehicles that would visit the development. The servicing arrangements are satisfactory subject to restrictions being placed on the size and times of refuse collection and delivery vehicles. This has been covered by a condition requiring a Service Management Plan to be submitted and agreed prior to the store first coming into use. The level of car parking proposed is in line with UDP guidelines at 20 parking spaces for the retail element. In addition secure short stay cycle parking spaces have been provided for customers. Waiting restrictions will be necessary on the Woodhouse Street frontage to restrict parking and thereby ensure safe operation of the access. This has been secured via a condition requiring such works to be completed prior to the store first coming into use. The works themselves will be delivered via a Section 278 Agreement. Autotracking has been used to demonstrate that refuse/delivery vehicles can safely manoeuvre within the site such that they can enter the highway in a forward gear. Page 57 10.8 In relation to the residential element the access and internal manoeuvring area have been autotracked to clearly demonstrate the refuse and delivery vehicles can safely turn within the site such that they can enter the highway in a forward gear. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location and the level of car parking proposed (16 spaces) is in line with similar developments located in close proximity to the University. In addition the proposals would provide 25 secure cycle parking spaces and 8 motorcycle parking spaces. Existing waiting restrictions are in place on Holborn Approach and surrounding streets which restrict/prevent parking. These will need to be reviewed and amended to accommodate the proposed access and to prevent overspill parking from the site taking place on the highway. The works themselves will be delivered via a Section 278 Agreement. There is a pedestrian link between Holborn Approach and Woodhouse Street (known as Wesley Court). This route is in a poor state of repair and is unlit. Residents of the proposed dwellings would use this route to access local facilities (including the proposed retail unit) and bus services on Woodhouse Street. As part of the development proposals the applicants has agreed to upgrade and light this route this work would be done under a S278 Agreement.
10.9 Two claimed footpaths cross the site. The applicant has applied to extinguish the footpaths which run through the site. There is another footpath route which abound the site and provide access from Woodhouse street to Holborn Approach. The Wesley Court route will be upgraded and lit as part of this planning application.
10.10 The proposal has been amended to ensure that the TPO trees located adjacent to the site on Midgley Gardens will not be harmed by the development. The building has been stepped away at this location to ensure the root protection areas of theses trees are not affected. The proposed landscaping scheme has also been enhanced by the provision of dwarf brick boundary walls to the Holborn Approach and Woodhouse Street frontages. Tree planting is proposed on site between the development and Holborn Approach and within the amenity area facing Wesley Court. Overall the proposal is considered to provide a good landscaping scheme which will add to the character of the area.
10.11 The proposed development generates a requirement to provide public open space. This requirement has been met via an off site contribution to enhance public open space in the locality. This will be secured via a Section 106 agreement. In addition to the public open space contribution this development will also contribute £20,000.00 towards the upgrading of an existing bus stop on Woodhouse Street. This upgrade will provide a shelter and a real time display. Both these contributions have been considered in light of the CIL regulations and are considered to meet the tests laid out.
11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 After careful consideration of all relevant planning matters it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable subject to the imposition of suitable conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
Background Papers: Application file; Certificate of Ownership. Page 58 12/02712/FU
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 59 SCALE : 1/1500 ° This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 Agenda Item 10
Originator: R Packham
Tel: 2478204
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL WEST Date: 8 November 2012 Subject: APPLICATION12/03599/FU Refrigerated chiller extension with car parking area and landscaping, Low Green Farm 40 Leeds Road, Rawdon Leeds LS19 6NU
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE J Penny and Sons Ltd 30.8.12 25.10.12
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Horsforth Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 3 year time limit 2. Development in accordance with approved plans 3. Sample materials 4. Hard and soft landscape works to be implemented in accordance with submitted details. 5. Timescale for landscape works 6. That part of the site shown to be used by vehicles, on the approved plans, has been laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed, as approved . 7. Cycles and motorcycle facilities to be provided. 8. Hours of delivery restricted to 0700 hours to 2100 hours Monday to Friday only with no such operations taking place on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. 9 Close boarded acoustic fence to be constructed along the western boundary of the existing and proposed site area. 10 No plant and/or machinery shall be used on the premises, unless it is enclosed in sound-insulating material. 11 Noise from plant and machinery to be restricted to 5dB below background noise level at noise affected premises. 12 No development shall take place until details of the extract ventilation system provided. Page 61 13 Hours of construction restricted to 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 Saturday. No work Sundays and Bank Holidays 14. Phase I Desk Study 15 Treatment of unexpected accommodation. 16 Verification report 17 Surface water drainage to be approved 18 Site investigation in accordance with submitted Coal Mining Report (relating to site stability)
Reasons for approval:
In granting permission for this development the City Council has taken into account all material planning considerations including those arising from the comments of any statutory and other consultees, public representations about the application and Government Guidance and Policy as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework and (as specified below) the content and policies within Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and The Development Plan consisting of The Yorkshire and Humber Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (RSS) and the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDPR).
GP5: Development proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations.
N33: Development in the Green Belt.
N37: Development in Special Landscape Areas.
T2: Development proposals should ensure that no new transport and highway problems are created or exiting ones exacerbated.
T24: Parking provision to reflect guidelines.
T7A: Provision of cycle parking.
T 7B: Provision of motorcycle parking.
Supplementary Planning Document:
LCC Street Design Guide SPD
The development is not of a type normally considered appropriate in the Green Belt but the City Council considers that the limited effect on the openness of the Green Belt and economic considerations outweigh the limited harm caused by this inappropriate development.
On balance, therefore, the City Council considers there are very special circumstances to justify this development in the Green Belt.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The proposal is reported to Panel because it involves a departure from the development plan in that it extends the existing premises further into the Green Belt. Local members have expressed concern and there are 9 objections from local residents.
Page 62 2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 The application is for full planning permission and proposes a chiller extension to the south of the existing abattoir and an extension of the curtilage of the abattoir into a field to the south for car and HGV parking.
2.2 The proposed chiller room extension adds a further 225m2 and is a building of dimensions 15m x 15m with a maximum height of 12.8 metres. External roofs and walls will be clad with plastisol coated profile steel cladding to match the already permitted extensions. The gable end of the new extension would abut the existing southern boundary of the abattoir which is well defined by a retaining wall.
2.3 The proposed car park extension is located to the south of the retaining wall in an open field which slopes to the south. The submitted drawings indicate that this area will be used for car parking and an HGV “waiting area”. The proposed extension to the yard into the adjacent field scales at 56 metres west/east and 14 metres north/south and is rectangular.
2.4 In order to enable access to this area from the existing yard the car park area will be raised by between 1 and 2 metres and retained on the southern boundary by a retaining wall shown as being 1.5 metres, the retaining element of which will be 1 metre. An Armco barrier the height of which is not specified will be erected on the yard side of the retaining wall. The new car park will have a concrete surface.
2.5 The proposed landscape drawing shows a sloping planting bed to the south of the retaining wall, and the existing effluent plant area, 84 metres long and a minimum of 7.5 metres from the south face of the wall. It is proposed that this area will be planted with trees and shrubs.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
3.1 The abattoir is located on the south side of the Leeds Road between Horsforth and Rawdon, within the Green Belt and a special landscape area.
3.2 The site, despite its Green Belt status, is developed as an abattoir with the whole site covered either with buildings, or concrete or gravel surfacing. The main building occupies the centre and eastern part of the site. There are a number of ancillary buildings to the north, and between these and the Leeds Road are parking areas. In the north west corner of the site is a house, probably of Victorian origin, which has been subsequently converted to offices with planning permission. Formerly this property had a walled garden to the south but this has been greatly reduced in size in order to accommodate a 200 m2 chiller extension and additional car parking.
3.3 Immediately to the north west is an area of three storey buildings which were originally in residential and industrial use but now also include offices. Immediately west the land is in residential use with properties fronting Low Green and Cliffe Lane to the west and with extensive gardens running to the western boundary of the application site. The nearest property, to the south west, is 20 metres from the south west corner of the site but the property and its garden are screened from the abattoir grounds by a tall coniferous hedgerow.
3.4 On the opposite side of Leeds Road the entire frontage is residential and there are two further dwellings on the same side of Leeds Road to the east. Land to the south and south east is in agricultural use.
Page 63 3.5 Because the land on the south side of Leeds Road slopes quite steeply towards the Aire Valley, the buildings within the site other than those on the frontage are not prominent from Leeds Road. From the east there are views of the eastern edge of the site but it has the appearance of a group of farm buildings. From the south the area is visible from Rodley Lane, but the abattoir is seen against existing development. The proposed chiller room will also be seen against the existing buildings. The site cannot be seen from the west because of existing buildings and vegetation.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 There have been a number of recent applications for planning permission to extend the premises.
4.2 Application reference 09/00542/FU related to a retrospective extension with a floor area of approximately 200m2 (a chiller room) and a new development to the south of this extension with a total floor area of approximately 625m2 to include a dispatch area and a carcass chiller building. Approved 23.2.2010
4.3 Application 11/00414/FU again proposed the extensions granted in 2010, extended slightly to the west, and also included an extension for a chiller room to the south of the existing building of 225m2 and an extension to the north, incorporating an office and further chiller room of about 420m2, giving a total new floor area nearly 1400m2, excluding the floor area of the retrospectively approved building. In addition it proposed the change of use of an existing stone barn to offices and toilets. Approved 24.2.12
4.4 Application 12/01654/FU was for a refrigerated chiller extension identical to the present proposal as well as an extension to the parking and area and associated landscaping which included a larger area south of the existing abattoir. The application was refused on 7.6.12.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 Application 12/01654/FU was refused for the following reasons:
1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed hardstanding constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and will extend the operational area of the abattoir to the south into open countryside. The Local Planning Authority do not consider that the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant outweigh the harm from inappropriate development together with the detrimental impact that this large area of concrete and its use for parking of cars and HGVs will have on the openness and purposes of the Leeds Green Belt. In view of this the proposal is considered contrary to Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to the advice on the control of development in the Green Belt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly at paragraphs 79,80,87,88 and 90.
2) The large, concrete surfaced car and HGV parking area located in a field south of the existing abattoir will seriously harm the character and appearance of theWoodhall/Calverley/Cragg Wood/ Hunger Hills Special Landscape Area and istherefore contrary to policy N37 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review2006).
Page 64 3) The proposed car and HGV parking area will result in vehicles parking and manoeuvring in an area that is closer than the existing abattoir development to residential properties, particularly the property known as the Bungalow to the west of the site. It is considered that this will result in detriment to the residential amenities of the residents of this property as a result of noise and disturbance and in view of this the proposal is contrary to Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006).
5.2 Subsequent to this refusal the Planning Services Manager met the applicant and his agent on site to discuss the reasons for refusal. The main issues discussed were the impact of the development on the Green Belt and the Special Landscape Area.
5.3 The refused application differed from the present proposal in that the proposed parking area extended into the adjacent field by 20 metres, beyond the concrete base of the effluent treatment area and the landscape planting along the southern end of the new hardstanding extended only along the boundary of the proposed parking area (i.e.56 metres). It was suggested by Officers that the visual impact of the proposal could be reduced by restricting the southern extend of the new hardstanding to 14 metres (to match the southern extent of the concrete base of the effluent treatment area) and planting could be extended along the whole of the proposed and existing southern boundary of the hardstanding (84 metres) so that it ran from the conifer hedge on the western boundary to the existing farm access east of the effluent treatment area.
5.4 The current application as submitted incorporated these suggestions. The Council’s Principal Landscape Architect subsequently suggested that the area of planting to the south of the proposed development would be more effective if it had a more natural shape (i.e. it did not have a straight southern edge to the field); if the type and location of plant types was revised; and if the buffer planting was extended to the east of the site, along the eastern side of the farm access.
5.5 The applicant has subsequently amended the proposal to address these issues with the exception of the suggestion of planting on the east side of the access road.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE
6.1 The application was advertised by site notices posted on 14 September 2012 in five locations in Leeds Road and Low Green.
6.2 Councillor Cleasby has asked whether a highways contribution could be sought from the applicant to compensate for the increase in traffic and its weight and size.
6.3 There have been 10 emails received from local residents and recorded on CAPS objecting to the proposal although one of these is a duplicate. There are therefore 9 individual objectors
6.4 The following comments have been made:
x Increases in traffic as the abattoir has grown. x Issues with smell from the development, including burning. x Proposals are contrary to policies for development in conservation area, green belt and special landscape area. (Various issues cited including impact on views from the south, car parking and buildings should not be allowed. Page 65 x Noise nuisance including early morning and weekend use causing disturbance to families in adjacent residential properties. Engines revving, people shouting, alarms. Disturbance in early morning a particular issue. x Question the validity of the applicants noise report. x Continuous expansion, piecemeal applications. Needs to relocate.
7.0 CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES
7.1 Statutory:
x Highways: No objections
x Flood Risk Management: No objection subject to conditions
7.2 Non-statutory:
x Contamination: No objection subject to conditions
x Neighbourhoods and Housing: Complaints received suggests that the hours of operation specified in the previous consents for this site are not being adhered to. On this basis would recommend refusal. If approval to be granted would recommend conditions relating to hours of operation, restriction of noise levels and construction of acoustic fence, as well as a condition to control working hours during construction.
x SDU Landscape: Reduction in hardstanding from refused scheme. This scheme shows development at its maximum extent to south to be acceptable. Comments made on amendments landscape buffer in initial proposals have partially been addressed.
7.3 Other:
x Coal Authority: Recommend condition requiring intrusive site investigation.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
Policies of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006)
GP5: Development proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations.
N33: Development in the Green Belt.
N37: Development in Special Landscape Areas.
T2: Development proposals should ensure that no new transport and highway problems are created or existing ones exacerbated.
T24: Parking provision to reflect guidelines.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Page 66 9.0 MAIN ISSUES
Principle of Development in the Green Belt
Impact on the Special landscape Area.
Impact on residential amenity
Highway Issues
Impact on the Low Green Conservation Area
10.0 APPRAISAL i Principle of development in the Green Belt
10.1 The site of the abattoir is located in the Leeds Green Belt.
10.2 Both the LUDPR and the NPPF state that within the Green Belt permission will only be granted, other than in very special circumstances, for a defined list of developments. The current proposal does not fall within the list of developments considered appropriate for a Green Belt Location and therefore it is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances.
10.3 The applicant has accepted that the development is contrary to the LUDPR and the NPPF, as it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but has argued that there are very special circumstances relating to the importance of the proposal to the UK meat supply industry. This is essentially the same argument that has been advanced as justification for previous proposals for the expansion of this business .
10.4 In relation to these previous proposals referred to above (applications 09/00542/FU and 11/00414/FU) the City Council took the view that the appropriate approach to Green Belt policy was to assess the impact of the inappropriate development and weigh this against the benefits of the proposals. In both cases it was concluded that the impact on openness was limited and that whilst the development was contrary to the development plan other material considerations, in particular the economic benefits, tipped the balance in favour of granting planning permission.
10.5 In relation to the previous proposal, reference 12/01654/FU, for the refrigerated chiller extension and car park, it was considered relevant that the proposal involved extending the operational area of the site into the adjacent field to the south and it was concluded that extending beyond this well-defined site boundary would have a much greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than previous proposals within the existing operational area. It was also considered that the development would impact on the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the LUDPR and at paragraph 80 of the NPPF, particularly the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
10.6 The conclusion in relation to that application was that whilst the Council accepted the special circumstances to justify the previous proposals on this site, the harm to
Page 67 the Green Belt outweighed these special circumstances in relation to the previous application.
10.7 The approach to be adopted in relation to this application should be consistent with the above decisions. That is that the impact of this inappropriate development should be weighed against the very special circumstances.
10.8 The applicant’s justification for additional chiller space is related to the process for maturing meat for sale. Following slaughter, fresh carcasses are stored in the fresh meat chiller for 24 hours after which they are moved to the carcass maturing chillers for a month. Following this the meat is cut, boned and vacuum packed in the cutting and boning room and the majority of meat is then moved in trays to the exiting box chiller where it matures for a further month before dispatch.
10.9 At present there is inadequate chiller capacity. There is extant permission for three carcass chillers on the site and once these are implemented there will be sufficient capacity for this part of the process. However the existing box chiller is of inadequate size and as a result the meat is moved off site to chillers elsewhere in Leeds. Extending the box chiller, as proposed in this application, will improve efficiency by ensuring that the whole process can take place on site and will obviate the need to transport boxed meat to other sites to complete the maturing process.
10.10 The applicant goes on to stress the economic benefits of the proposal and particularly the fact that the business supports economic growth. It is pointed out by the applicant that the government is committed to support the meat industry and that the proposal is important for production and supply. by increasing efficiency as outlined above.
10.11 In addition it is argued that Penny’s in an important local employer, with 65 staff working at Low Green, and also a significant supplier of high quality meat, particularly in Yorkshire. The proposal is also considered to be compliant with the objectives of Defra’s Rural Development Programme for England which include “to improve the processing and marketing of primary agricultural products” by, inter alia, “investment in improved efficiency” to “improve the overall performance of the enterprise”.
10.12 The NPPF states that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to encourage sustainable growth and that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems. It states at paragraph 19 that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.
10.13 In relation to the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt the extension to the box chiller takes existing buildings to the edge of the existing hardstanding. It is evident that if vehicles are to access the adjacent yard it will be necessary to extend the hardstanding beyond the current southern boundary of the site. However in terms of the issue of harm to the Green Belt, the revised scheme incorporates as number of amendments to the refused scheme. The following are relevant to the consideration of the proposal:
x The decrease in the width of the hardstanding to 14 metres as a result of which the distance to which it extends beyond the existing site boundary is reduced by 6 metres. This also brings the hardstanding in line with the southern edge of the effluent treatment area. Page 68 x The increased width and length of the landscape screen to the south of the proposed hardstanding. This screen has been extended along the whole boundary of the site with the adjacent field and has been remodeled to provide a more natural shape, rather than a straight boundary, and the amount and variety of planting increased.
10.14 It is considered that these amendments, resulting from the on-site discussions and accepted by the applicant mitigate the concerns raised in the first reason for refusal by reducing the impact of the development itself on the openness of the Green Belt and also helping to reduce the impact of the existing development.
10.15 It is the view of Officers that taking account of the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant, the advice in the NPPF, the differences between the present proposal and the refused application and the amendments made to the present application following submission, the proposal overcomes the first refusal reason from the previous application. ii Impact on the Special Landscape Area
10.16 The site is also within a Special Landscape Area (Woodhall/Calverley/Cragg Wood/ Hunger Hills) and Policy N37 of the UDPR applies. In relation to this policy, the test is whether the development proposed will seriously harm the character and appearance of the landscape.
10.17 It does not follow that because the development is considered to affect the openness of the Green Belt it will also seriously harm the character and appearance of the landscape, but in the case of the refused application the impact of a large (more than 1000m2) concrete apron and associated parking on the land to the south of the abattoir was considered to be seriously harmful to the landscape of this area.
10.18 The current proposal reduces the size of the hardstanding by 30%, whilst extending the landscape buffer along the whole southern edge of the site by 50%.
10.19 The development will clearly have some impact on the Special Landscape Area. However the policy test is whether the impact is seriously harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape on the SLA. Whilst the initial impact will undoubtedly be apparent, particularly from the south, the growth of the boundary planting will ultimately result in a reduction in the impact of the abattoir as whole on the SLA and it is considered that the reduction in the extent of the hardstanding coupled with the increased buffer planting will mitigate the impact to an extent which is acceptable. iii Residential Amenity
10.20 The third refusal reason in relation to the previous application stated that their would be a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of adjacent properties, in particular the bungalow to the west, as a result of vehicle movements in the extended yard area.
10.21 No representations were received in relation to the previous scheme. The present proposal has resulted in 9 representations, however, primarily on the grounds of amenity impacts of the abattoir, in particular existing noise, smell and levels of traffic.
Page 69 10.22 In relation to noise, the objectors refer, in the main, to late night/early morning and weekend noise. However, the existing development is the subject of conditions, attached to the previous approvals, that specifically exclude delivery to and from the premises, together with loading and unloading within the premises shall be restricted to 0700 hours to 2100 hours Monday to Friday only with no such operations taking place on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. The present application also states that the hours of opening are 0700 hours to 2100 hours.
10.23 Residents have suggested that the applicant has told them that the movement of vehicles within the area of the abattoir is related to the use of the premises for agriculture. However it is quite clear from the current submission that all of the buildings are used for the purposes of the abattoir.
10.24 It is accepted that the use of these premises outside the approved hours would be likely to cause disturbance to adjacent properties and for that reason it is recommended that the time restriction condition should be reiterated on this application. Such use, if proven, would represent a breach of existing conditions (one of the applications was in part retrospective and has therefore been implemented). This matter is being investigated by Environmental Protection and Planning Compliance and necessary action will be taken if it is found that the time limit conditions are being breached.
10.25 It is not considered that the current application is likely to result in any increase in traffic or lead to a need to work outside the approved hours since it is intended to increase storage space at the site. Indeed, given that the additional chiller will, according to the applicant, mean that off site storage facilties do not need to be used it could lead to a reduction in traffic.
10.26 Taking all these issues into account it is concluded that the current proposal will not cause an increase in noise and will not therefore have any additional impact on residential amenity in this respect.
10.27 With regard to smells from the premises, this is again not likely to be an issue in relation to the current proposal as the principle element of the development is a meat chiller and it is other processes at the abattoir that lead to possible odour issues. In any event such matters are covered by other legislation and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team monitor this issue and take action as necessary to address the problem.
10.28 It is therefore concluded that if the conditions applied to this and other permissions are adhered to and if necessary enforced the amenities of local residents will not be adversely affected. iv Highway Issues
10.29 The proposal is acceptable in highway terms and the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal. Councillor Cleasby has requested that a highway contribution be sought from the applicant and the advice of Highways Development Control has been sought on this issue.
10.30 In response it has been stated that the submitted information indicates that the proposals are for a storage extension only which is unlikely to generate additional staff increases on the site and the applicant has stated that there will be similar traffic movements from the site as existing. The applicant is proposing formalising
Page 70 parking within the side and rear yards but these are already used by staff for overspill parking.
10.31 The extension on the site does not generate any formal highway contributions (i.e. public transport and travel plan etc.) taking into account SPD thresholds. The proposals are also not considered to require any highway improvements at the site access or on the local highway i.e. the existing network can accommodate the proposals safely.
10.32 Taking into account the above issues, it would be difficult to sustain a request for highway contributions in relation to this application. v Impact on the Low Green Conservation Area
10.33 The recent review of the Conservation Area boundary in this area has taken the majority of the site out of the Conservation Area with only a limited area on the Leeds Road frontage now included. The development, when considered in the context of other development in the area, previous planning permissions and the proximity of the Conservation Area, is not considered to be harmful to the character of the Conservation Area.
11.0 CONCLUSION
11.1 In light of the above it is recommended that planning permission is granted. Whilst the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt there are very special circumstances of sufficient weight to overcome the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. The development would not cause significant harm to the landscape of the Special Landscape Area and would not result in detriment to the residential amenities of adjacent properties provided the conditions are adhered to and enforced.
Background papers:
Application file: 12/03599/FU
Certificate of Ownership: Certificate A submitted
Page 71 12/03599/FU
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 72 SCALE : 1/1500 ° Agenda Item 11
Originator: Victoria Hinchliff Walker Tel: 0113 395 1378
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH AND WEST
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 10/04404/FU – Application for the erection of retail store with car parking and landscaping at junction of Moorhouse Avenue and Old Lane, Beeston, LS11
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Tesco Stores Ltd 1 October 2010 31 December 2010
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Beeston & Holbeck Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission for the following reason:
1. The proposed development comprises of a main town centre use that is located in an out of centre site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are not sequentially preferable sites available to accommodate a retail store of this general scale and form. The proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Review policies SP7, S2, S3, S3a and S5 and to the guidance set out in paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, as well as to policies contained within the draft Core Strategy (policy P5).
2. The proposed development is located outside of, but close to, the Dewsbury Road town centre. This is a centre that the UDPR places a priority on its refurbishment and enhancement and development in such proximity to it is likely to make it less attractive to future investment by similar retail provision. The failure to invest in the Dewsbury Road centre will serve to undermine its long term viability and vitality of the centre to the detriment of its retail function. As such the proposal constitutes an unsustainable form of development contrary to
Page 73 policies S3A and S5 of the UDPR and paragraph 26 of the NPPF as well as to guidance contained in the draft Core Strategy.
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application for an out of centre convenience retail store is brought to Members for consideration due to the local significance of the proposal and the number of representations received in relation to the application. The application is considerably over time now and an appeal against non-determination could be lodged.
1.2 A report was published for the 8 September 2011 Plans Panel East meeting. However at the 8 September meeting, Members were advised that a late objection had been received on behalf of Asda and the report was then withdrawn from the agenda to allow full consideration of the issues raised. Following the objection an application was then received to construct a new Asda store on the adjoining site. This application raises very similar issues and the decision was taken to consider the two applications together. Retail advice has been sought on both proposals from Colliers International who carried out the Leeds City Centre, Town and Local Centre’s Study on behalf of the Council.
1.3 Whilst the two applications are presented to Panel as two separate reports Members should ensure that they read both reports in conjunction with each other. Essentially for each application the issues to be considered are the same, no objections are raised with regard to design or highway matters, the refusal stems from the impact of either proposal on the ability to promote and protect other town centres.
1.4 Members should also be aware that the two schemes have, so far, been assessed individually in terms of their impact. Should Members be minded to not accept the reasons for refusal then both applications should be deferred to allow consideration of the cumulative impact on the highway network.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The application proposes to erect a new convenience retail store of 2,737m 2 gross floorspace. The proposed store will have a net floorspace of 1,487m 2 of which 1,333m 2 will be for the sale of convenience goods and some 154m 2 would be for the sale of comparison goods such as newspapers, magazines, health and beauty products etc. An ATM is also proposed at the front of the store facing the car park.
2.2 The store was originally proposed to open 24 hours a day Monday to Saturday and 10.00 to 17.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. However the proposed hours of opening have been amended and the revised opening hours are proposed to be 07.30 to 22.00 hours Monday to Saturday and to open for a 6 hour period between 10.00 to 18.00 on Sundays.
2.3 The application details estimate that the store will employ 36 full time staff and 84 part time staff once the store is operating.
2.4 The store is proposed to be sited on the southern part of the site adjoining the boundary with the Royal London Industrial Estate. The main vehicular entrance to the new store is proposed to be taken from Moorhouse Avenue to the north of the site and whilst this will also include a pedestrian footway which links into a central
Page 74 pedestrian route through the car park, the main pedestrian entrance to the site is proposed to be taken from Old Lane close to the junction with Oakhurst Mount.
2.5 A separate vehicular access from Moorhouse Avenue is provided for delivery vehicles; this avoids the main car park and is a direct route to the service yard which is proposed in the south west corner of the site.
2.6 The main pedestrian entrance into the site from Old Lane is designed with a ramped and stepped access to accommodate the levels difference between the main part of the site and street level. This pedestrian entrance is designed with a brick clock tower focal point to mark the entrance.
2.7 The scheme proposes 163 car parking spaces as well as motor cycle parking and cycle parking which comprise of;
x 139 standard car parking space x 10 disabled car parking spaces x 6 parent and child car parking spaces x 8 staff car parking spaces x 2 motorcycle parking bays x cycle racks for 30 cycles close to the main entrance to the store x secure cycle lockers for staff close to the staff area
2.8 The design of the proposed store is a single storey building some 7m in height when measured on the eastern elevation facing Old Lane. The store is designed with almost a flat roof (there is a very slight pitch). The store increases in height on the western side of the building, adjacent to the service yard, to include a staff area at first floor. The main elevation of the store is the northern elevation facing onto the car parking area; this elevation is largely glazed, with brickwork around the entrance and projecting entrance lobby.
2.9 The eastern elevation facing Old Lane is proposed to have a brick plinth base with larch cladding above and then a final section of glazing to the top of this elevation.
2.10 The elevation facing the service area comprises mainly of larch cladding and the rear elevation of the store (southern elevation) which backs onto the existing industrial units to the south is proposed to be grey composite panels with a section of larch cladding to the top of this elevation.
2.11 The proposed layout of the store retains the 10m belt of protected trees along the boundary with Old Lane. One tree is proposed for removal along the Moorhouse Avenue boundary to facilitate the new vehicular access however additional planting is proposed.
2.12 BREAAM Assessment has been provided with the application which assesses the rating that the proposed store can achieve. The assessment concludes that the store can achieve the BREAAM very good rating (requirement of 55%) by achieving a score of 56%.
2.13 This rating is achieved through measures such as design of the store to incorporate features which minimise heat loss, energy efficiency measures to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%, water consumption efficiency measures in WC’s, installation of water meter with pulsed output, rainwater harvesting capable of supplying 50% of the toilet flushing needs. Use of Green materials for the majority of the elevations of Page 75 the proposed store through larch cladding and a standing seam metal roof, recycling facilities for the stores waste, external lighting to comply with the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance for the reduction of obtrusive light.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The site is a 1.2 hectare vacant site of a former factory building known as Jubilee House which covered the majority of the site with car parking to the north. The buildings were cleared between 2006 and 2009. The site is situated on Old Lane between Beeston local centre which is some 430m to the north and the emerging Tommy Wass centre which lies approximately 460m to the south.
3.2 The site adjoins Enterprise Industrial Park to the west, also accessed off Moorhouse Avenue which contains some 26 industrial units. There are another 4 industrial units to the south of the site on the Royal London Industrial Estate accessed off Old Lane, which also share access with the Asda store (former Netto Store). The Asda store is some circa 600m 2 in size and has permission to extend up to 750m 2. This site is also the subject of the application for a larger Asda store.
3.3 Despite the commercial uses to the south and west of the site, the site lies within a predominantly residential area. Old Lane is predominantly residential with a large residential population to the east. Residential properties of 71 – 103 Old Lane face onto the site, these are two storey semi detached and detached properties. However, No’s 87 and 89 Old Lane facing the proposed pedestrian access into the site are in use as a dental surgery and Post Office.
3.4 Playing fields and allotment gardens are to the north of the site on the other side of Moorhouse Avenue with a public right of way which runs along this land parallel to Moorhouse Avenue.
3.5 The site is not designated for any particular use within the UDP Review 2006. Trees along the eastern boundary of the site are protected by TPO 1978/24.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Adjacent site 4.1 11/04306/OT Asda Foodstore, Old Lane, Beeston Demolition of existing buildings and erect a retail foodstore (Class A1, 2,895m 2 gross), with car parking, landscaping and access. Received 11.10.11. Pending consideration.
Application site 4.2 The site was open fields until the early 1900’s when a large factory was built by Moorhouse Preserves and it operated as a jam factory until approximately the 1970/80s. Since that time the site has been used as a works, and a Wickes DIY showroom/retail store. It is not clear from the history whether this operated as a sole A1 retail unit or whether the retail element was ancillary. However it is noted that when an application to set up an office and leisure complex came in then it was refused on the grounds that it was out of town and contrary to town centre policy at the time.
4.3 21/213/03 – Change of use of works to offices and leisure complex (Jubilee House) Refused 03/10/2003. Application considered to be contrary to PPG6 and failure to carry out sequential test and lack of parking provision.
Page 76 4.4 21/159/98/FU - Alterations to elevations and service yard and wall to Moorhouse Avenue frontage. Approved 16.09.1998.
4.5 21/23/97FU - Alterations to frontage and single storey front extension to offices. Approved 12.03.1997
4.6 H21/286/89 - Change of use of DIY retail, involving alterations, including new frontage and extension, to form entrance canopy. Approved 05.12.1989
4.7 H21/195/88 - Change of use of retail store to show room, training facilities and offices. Approved 20.10.1988
4.8 H21/326/81 – Signage to DIY Shop (Wickes Building Supplies). Approved 26.01.1982
4.9 H21/103/80 - Laying out of accesses and alterations and extension, to form retail sales area, with offices, toilets and staff room. (Wickes Building Supplies Ltd). Approved 04.06.1980
4.10 H21/444/78 - 10 warehouse units, each with ancillary offices and toilets with car parking areas, servicing areas, access road. Approved 09.07.1979
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 Pre application advice was given concerning the principle of a new retail store in this location which raised concern regarding impact.
5..2 Significant negotiations have taken place following the submission of the application with regards to highway issues as well as the siting of the store and relationship to existing trees on the site. These have led to revisions to the proposal which were re-advertised on 15 July 2011. Details of these revisions are set out in the appraisal section of this report.
5.3 The applicants have also been asked to further address sequential sites identified by the Council, including the police site at Dewsbury Road, Crescent Works on Dewsbury Road and the Runswicks at Holbeck. Comments relating to this are addressed in the appraisal below.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The applicant has submitted a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which details consultation carried out prior to submission of the application on 27 th September 2010 and which is also updated with an addendum concerning further consultation carried out through the course of the application process.
6.2 Public consultation prior to submission of the application was carried out by Tesco’s appointed consultants IPB communications in the following ways; nd x Meeting with Ward Members 2 August 2010 and 24 September 2010 st x Presentation to Beeston Community Forum on 1 September 2010 (attended by Ward Members as well as Hilary Benn MP) x 5,000 leaflets were distributed to the local community informing them of public exhibition events Page 77 x 892 personal invitations to the exhibitions were sent to local residents x The public exhibitions were also advertised by way of a press release th x A Stakeholder Preview of the Public Exhibition took place on 9 September 2010 x Public Exhibitions took place between 11am – 2pm at Beeston Hill United Free Church and between 4pm – 8pm at Beeston Village Community Centre on 9 th September 2010.
6.3 The SCI advises 135 responses were received to the comments forms provided at the public exhibition. The SCI states that in response to the question asked at the public exhibition – Are you supportive of the proposals? 83% of the responses were supportive. Other comments that came out of Tesco’s own public consultation focussed on the importance of a good pedestrian access and this has resulted in the proposal for a toucan crossing as well as the proposed gateway focal point of the brick clock tower at the pedestrian access. The SCI also comments that traffic was raised as a concern and that the Transport Assessment addresses this concern.
6.4 Following the submission of the application and representations received regarding the application, Tesco carried out further consultation which has included attendance at 3 Beeston Community Forum meetings which lead to the community forum removing their objection letter. Meetings have also taken place with Oasis Dental Practice and the Post Office on Old Lane and other community groups including the local community centre, church groups, school, health centre and local football club. Tesco advise that as a direct result of this consultation a number of commitments and changes to the application have been made. These include; x To enter into a routing agreement with the council restricting delivery vehicles to use the Tommy Wass junction x Resurfacing the footpath along Moorhouse Avenue x To make money available to be use for traffic calming measures if the new store causes a significant increase in rat running through the residential area east of Old Lane x Retain the existing parking bays on Old Lane outside of the Post Office x Opening hours have been revised and the store will not open 24 hours x No night time deliveries and hours of deliveries to be agreed by condition x Focus on local recruitment to residents within the LS10 and LS11 districts first. x Acceptance of conditions regarding noise levels in accordance with the noise report x Commitment to considerate working practices during construction
6.5 It should be noted that an initial offer from Tesco to provide benches along Old Lane as well as for St Anthony’s FC members to use Tesco car park have since been removed as it was considered that the benches were not able to be delivered on the highway and the offer of use of the car park for the local football club members had not been accounted for in the transport assessment.
6.6 The planning application has been advertised by way of site notices around the site on 15 October 2010 and 15 July 2011. An advert was placed in Leeds Weekly News on 14 October 2010.
6.7 Since the application was first advertised in October 2010, 75 individual letters of support were received and 437 standard letters of support. The comments on the letters of support can be summarised as follows; x A Tesco is needed in South Leeds to offer more choice
Page 78 x Development of derelict site welcomed as it is an eyesore and has been used as a travellers camp x Job creation is welcomed both in construction and operation x Regeneration benefits to South Leeds x The proposal is good for the area x The proposal will reduce the need for people to use a car and benefits people without a car x Local people have to travel to Batley to shop at Tesco x Pedestrian entrance on Old Lane is supported x The building will be environmentally sustainable x Toilet and baby change facilities are supported x A more affordable shop is welcomed x Café would be beneficial x Positives outweigh the negatives x A crossing outside the post office is welcomed x Design of proposed store is aesthetically pleasing
6.8 Since the application was first advertised 37 letters of objection have been received as well as objection letters from the Post Office, Oasis Dental Practice, Leeds Civic Trust and letters on behalf of Co Op supermarket and Morrisons Supermarket.
6.9 The individual letters of objection are on the following grounds; x Overestimation of job creation as other stores will close x Congestion along Old Lane, particularly on match days and school collection times. x Drivers at present don’t stick to 30mph speed limit x Old Lane is not wide enough for additional traffic and is in a poor state of repair x It would be a shame if the post office, dentist and Co Op suffered x Increase in noise levels and pollution from traffic x Increased noise levels in the evening x Netto will soon be an Asda and will serve this area x Residents can’t park outside their own houses x The store car park will be used for match day parking x The store will introduce additional traffic on Sundays x There will be an impact on smaller traders x There are already 3 supermarkets along Old Lane – Spar, Netto, Co Op x Loss of light coming through due to height of building on Old Lane x Increased carbon footprint as produce not local x Too many supermarkets x Increases in traffic and HGV’s, giving potential for additional fumes and concerns for school children and pedestrians using Old Lane x The suggestion for benches along Old Lane is not a good idea as could lead to anti social behaviour problems x The increases in traffic will be 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year x Existing stores will suffer and the site would be better used for low cost, high quality housing or recreational use x House prices would devalue x Increases in pollution, litter and noise x There would be noise and disruption to the local allotment site x The application will have an overbearing affect on residential housing and privacy of neighbours Page 79 x Proposal will affect the character of the area and will destroy the area and local community x Opening times are for the greater part of the day meaning no time for peace and quiet in a relatively nice area
6.10 Leeds Civic Trust objects to the application due to the impact to Beeston Centre where there has been significant investment and viability will be affected. The area is well provided for with a Netto, several smaller shop units, White Rose Centre and Asda Middleton development. A large car park is proposed therefore Tesco expect a large number of customers to travel to the store and this is unsustainable and there is already congestion and the bus service is infrequent.
6.11 The Post Office opposite the site on Old Lane have objected due to the loss of parking to the front of the Post Office and Dentist and raise concerns that access for customers to the post office and ATM will be affected as well as Royal Mail collections, deliveries and the cash van. The Post Office wish the existing crossing to remain as it is and a new crossing should be created further down Old Lane serving Tesco and Netto. The Post Office are also concerned that Tesco will sell competing products that are sold at the Post Office and will therefore affect the Post Office’s viability and may lead to its closure.
6.12 Following revisions to the scheme the Post Office had written to advise that they appreciate the revisions to the proposed crossing which allow for loading and unloading on the approach to the crossing and that some parking is still available on the exit. However concerns are raised that when the original crossing was installed on Old Lane assurances were given that parking would not be restricted and since then parking has been restricted with keep clear markings. The Post Office are therefore seeking a guarantee that no further restrictions beyond those on the revised drawings will be implemented in the future.
6.13 Oasis Dental Practice at 87 Old Lane also object to the application due to the position of the crossing and loss of parking which is needed for disabled patients to provide direct access.
6.14 Beeston Community Forum initially raised concerns regarding the proposal but have since withdrawn their objection and state that this is because they have now seen traffic surveys and are persuaded that people are unlikely to travel to the supermarket at times when the road network is congested. They also note that the noise survey indicates that impact would be proportionally lower at times when existing noise levels are high. The objection from the community forum is withdrawn on the following basis; x traffic levels are not expected to rise significantly as a result of the development, x all landscaped areas are to be properly maintained, x delivery vehicles to travel to and from the store via Dewsbury Road, Tommy Wass junction and Old Lane, x footpath along Moorhouse Avenue to be resurfaced by Tesco, x benches to be provided on Old Lane, x Tesco to make money available for traffic calming measures if as a result of the store there is a significant increase in rat running, x the store does not open 24 hours and there are to be no deliveries between 11pm and 7am, x paragraphs 4.8 and 8.3 of the noise survey requirements should be formal planning conditions (relating to fixed plant and machinery), x job creation should be marketed towards residents of LS10 and LS11, Page 80 x Tesco finance noise mitigation measures if noise levels in the vicinity of the store rise to unacceptable levels, x the community forum also request that they are consulted regarding the draft s106 agreement.
6.15 Co Op Letters of objection have been received from consultants acting on behalf of the existing Co Operative Supermarket at Beeston Local Centre on the following grounds; x The household survey results from Colliers to support the City, Town and Local Centres Study have not been made fully available to Council Officers or members of the public, there is therefore a lack of information for Officers or respondents to fully assess the application. x Perplexed as to why the Council awaited further findings of the Town Centres Study but then discount the validity of the sub catchments. The site is within the Inner South Zone in which the Study identifies a negative floorspace requirement. x The proposal is not compliant with policy S5 of the UDP which suggests a strict approach to out of centre retail development x Applicant’s account of leakage of expenditure from the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) is disputed, and it does not acknowledge overlaps with other catchment areas/ centres and therefore overestimates the amount of expenditure derived from the PCA. x In fact, retention of expenditure within the PCA can be considered high x The catchment area contains 4 centres and 4 foodstores, illustrating that it is well catered for. x Lack of evidence to support the scale of store necessary to draw back trade x Lack of evidence regarding lack of choice in the PCA or overcrowding and congestion at existing stores x The proposal will not rectify any quantitative or qualitative deficiencies as it is not considered that there are any immediate or short term deficiencies in food store provision within the locality. x Applicant has shown limited flexibility with regard to the sequential assessment and the Kwik Save site at Dewsbury Road x It is erroneous to use capacity as grounds for discounting sequential test site x It cannot be concluded that there is a need for the scale and form of development proposed x The Council should rigorously consider implications for future use of the Kwik Save, Dewsbury Rd site as the increased competition will make it more difficult to let the existing vacant unit as there is not considered to be sufficient capacity for the proposed store and a new store at the former Kwik Save. x The applicant has underestimated impact of the proposal on Co Op Beeston x Co Op Beeston is overtrading to (£4.8m) but should be protected as it is utilised beyond merely a top up function and is also a destination for main food shopping x The trade draw from Co Op will be deeply damaging in impact terms and the proposal will divert both top up shopping and main food expenditure x Diversion of top up shopping will be significant in its own right and the proposed store will compete for top up trade x The applicants estimate of Co op turnover is severely misjudged x The applicant’s assessment of impact is not sufficiently robust x Lack of evidence that proposal would be likely to reduce car usage
Page 81 x Proposal will negatively impact upon the vitality and viability of Beeston Local Centre and Dewsbury Road and reduce footfall and will undermine the retail hierarchy of Leeds centres x Dewsbury Road also has the ability to serve the catchment area to the degree which Beeston Co Op does and to address any deficiencies the Council consider exist which is an in centre site and would not result in thet negative impacts of this proposal, and this is supported by the Council’s City, Town and Local Centres Study. x The proposal is of an inappropriate scale compared to existing provision and will divert unacceptable amount of trade from Co Op, rendering future investment in the store marginal therefore resulting in an impact on the long term role and function of the centre x Should the Council consider that the application does not fail either the sequential test or that it would not lead to any significant adverse impacts – the balance of negative impacts of the proposal would outweigh any perceived benefits.
Morrisons 6.16 An objection letter has been received from consultants on behalf of Morrisons at Penny Hill Centre, Hunslet on the following grounds; x Applicant’s lack of flexibility in terms of scale and format and reasons for discounting Kwik Save, Dewsbury Road x Applicant has grossly underestimated potential trade diversion from Morrisons, Hunslet and the proposal will divert significant trade from this store which will impact on linked trips within Hunslet town centre. x Revised impact assessment should be submitted to take account of Tesco proposal at Middleton (that application has now been refused) x The proposal alongside Asda Middleton will have far reaching effects on current shopping patters in south Leeds, to the detriment of designated centres x The proposal does not accord with the key tests of PPS4 and should be refused.
Asda 6.17 An objection has been received on behalf of Asda Supermarkets on the grounds that Middleton District Centre is considered to be some 5 minutes drive away on the basis of their analysis however no evidence is provided by the applicant in respect of trade diversion from committed development of Asda, Middleton. Asda state that the provision of a new Tesco store would be to the detriment of planned Investment at Middleton. And if it is not the case that Asda Middleton’s proposal would be undermined then the local impacts on trade diversion must be greater than predicted by the applicant and in which case the proposal would undermined the provision of daily needs shopping.
6.18 The objection on behalf of Asda also points out that this site was one which was included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment with an estimated capacity of 44 dwellings and the site therefore has the potential to contribute towards housing land supply in the next ten years. It is also highlighted that there are few sites identified in the SHLAA that are in this locality.
6.19 The conclusion’s reached on behalf of Asda are that the application is contrary to PPS4 policy E13.1b due to failure to protect existing facilities which provide for peoples day to day shopping. The proposal is also contrary to policy EC17.2 as it is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in relation to committed and planning Page 82 Investment in centre. Finally the objection considers the proposal to be contrary to policy S5ii as it is of a scale and type that would undermine the vitality and viability of designated centres, namely Middleton.
7.0 CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES:
Statutory: Highways 7.1 When the application was first submitted Highways agreed the trip rates estimated in the Transport Assessment with regards to likely traffic generation from the proposed store, however there were concerns regarding the assessment of the traffic impact on the surrounding road network. These concerns specifically related to the roundabout junction of Town Street/Beeston Road/Old Lane and potential unacceptable queue lengths on Old Lane as a result of traffic from the store. It was therefore advised that measures to increase the capacity of this junction would be required to demonstrate that the additional traffic generated by the proposed supermarket could be accommodated and this also needed to take into account the pedestrian movements at this junction.
7.2 Furthermore, the junction of Town Street/Wesley Street was not included in the initial Transport Assessment and the junction of Old Lane/Dewsbury Road (Tommy Wass junction) required further assessment and did not include the impact of the quality bus scheme at the Tommy Wass junction.
7.3 In terms of the proposed layout of the store there were concerns that the proposed site access depended on visibility splays which crossed third party land. The level of car parking proposed at the site was considered acceptable.
7.4 A new 4m wide raised toucan pedestrian crossing is proposed adjacent to the site on Old Lane, this is required as the existing crossing facilities would be insufficient to support the level of footfall expected to be generated by the store. The upgraded crossing would result in the loss of 1 on street parking bay in front of the Post Office as part of this area is already marked keep clear. Should the crossing be relocated elsewhere on Old Lane it would result in the loss of up to 4 parking spaces from existing on street parking lay bys?
7.5 A revised Transport Assessment was formally submitted on 4 July 2011 together with revised drawings showing an amended layout. The revised layout shows that the vehicle access can be accommodated within the red line boundary. The existing access has been retained for service vehicles, whilst a new access is proposed for customers to the store. The internal layout separates the customer and service area and provides designated pedestrian routes through the site and is acceptable.
7.6 The parking provided for the store is considered to be acceptable. 163 car parking spaces are proposed and a car parking accumulation calculation undertaken by the Applicant estimates a maximum requirement of 149 spaces on Friday and 156 spaces on Saturday, the peak times for Supermarket shopping. Whilst this is within the number of spaces proposed, at peak times this equates to 91% and 95% of the maximum capacity.
7.7 At over 90% of capacity, the operation of a car park can deteriorate with cars queuing in the aisles, waiting for a space to become free. At high occupancy levels, there is more unnecessary circulation which conflicts with people pushing shopping trolleys to get to their cars. As a result, the number of car parking spaces should not be reduced any further. Page 83 7.8 In relation to the traffic generated by the proposed store and the impact on surrounding junctions, off site highway works are proposed by way of amendments to the junction layout at Old Lane/Town Street and the provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing on Old Lane and these have been agreed. The Applicant has also agreed to contribute the sum of £50,000 to the Council to monitor the traffic and for any traffic calming measures that may be required to control traffic relating to the proposed development.
Environment Agency 7.9 No objection subject to a condition that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment dated September 2010 and mitigation measures within the FRA shall be carried out.
Non-statutory: Architectural Liaison Officer 7.10 Raised queries regarding measures to prevent abuse of car park area outside of opening hours, as well as general queries regarding materials to be used in construction and provision of CCTV. Careful consideration should be given to location of ATM.
Travelwise 7.11 The initial travel plan was not considered acceptable and a revised Travel Plan has been received and is considered acceptable. A travel plan monitoring evaluation fee of £2,600 is required.
7.12 There is a deficiency in dropped kerb provision for the two kerbs at the junction of Jessamine Avenue with Grovehall Parade and this development should rectify this to allow disabled persons to get to the store. Electric charging points are encouraged and a shower should be provided within the store for staff that may run/ cycle to work.
Public Transport Contribution 7.13 The proposed development will generate a large number of trips, a proportion of which will have to be accommodated on the public transport network. The scheme has, therefore, been assessed in accordance with the City Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) “Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions”.
7.14 As a result of this assessment, it is clear that the proposed use will have a significant travel impact, which will need to be addressed. Under the terms of the SPD guidance, therefore, a financial contribution proportionate to the travel impact of the scheme will be required towards the cost of providing the strategic transport enhancements (detailed in the SPD) which are needed to accommodate additional trips on the network.
7.15 In this case a contribution in the order of £216,301 should be sought.
METRO 7.16 In terms of accessibility the site is well served by public transport with bus services operating directly past the site and more frequent services operating on Dewsbury Road to the south and Town Street to the north.
7.17 Public transport infrastructure in the close vicinity of the site is relatively modern and already has DDA compliant kerbings and bus clearways. Shelter 10075 located on Page 84 the northbound side of Old Lane should be improved to have a real time information display installed at a cost of £10,000.
7.18 METRO also comments that they expect a greater percentage of shoppers to use public transport than is projected in the applicant’s Transport Assessment. The proposal will generate approximately 120 full or part time employment opportunities. It is likely that staff working at the supermarket will not be car users and targets need to be included in a travel plan with measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes.
7.19 Metro supports the council in the application of the public transport SPD contribution for this site
Yorkshire Water 7.20 A water supply can be provided under the terms of the Water Act 1991. The Flood Risk Assessment and Surface and Foul drainage design reports submitted are satisfactory to Yorkshire Water. The reports confirm that foul water from the site will discharge to a public combined sewer to the East of the site with surface water to a public combined sewer to the East of the site via storage, with restricted discharge rate. No objections, conditions recommended.
Land Contamination 7.21 No objections subject to conditions regarding submission of remediation method statement.
Access Officer 7.22 A 1200mm rear transference area to disabled parking bays should be provided. It is unfortunate that disabled bays have been reduced from 12 spaces to 10. Barriers to the pedestrian entrance on Old Lane should be restricted to back of pavement away from the landing area. Details of gradients, up-stands, tactile paving, level landing and handrails to the main pedestrian entrance should be provided by way of a condition. Clarification is required regarding location of cycle stands and proximity to pedestrian steps and ramp.
Environmental Health 7.23 A noise report has been provided which identifies the principal noise sources will be noise from fixed mechanical services plant, bulk deliveries, car parking activity and road traffic noise. In addition to this, if recycling facilities are proposed then this is a further potential noise source and would require careful positioning and possible attenuation. There may also be potential for noise disturbance during construction of the proposed development. Lighting should be positioned so as not to cause nuisance to nearby residents. No objections are raised by Environmental Health and if planning permission is to be granted, conditions are recommended to protect the amenity of nearby residents.
7.24 Conditions relate to hours of construction (between 0730 – 1830 weekdays and 0900 – 1300 on Saturdays) / hours of delivery and refuse collection ( between 0530 – 2300 Mondays to Sunday)/ details of storage and disposal of litter/ details of all fixed plant to be submitted/ LAeq from all mechanical services plant not to exceed a level at the nearest noise sensitive premises higher than 5dB below the lowest prevailing background noise level in the absence of noise from the plant/ noise level of any air condition to accord with previous condition/ hours of use of mounted refrigeration restricted between 2300 and 0530/ lighting restrictions/ no operation of tannoy/ details of extract ventilation system/ provision of grease trap/ submission of details of recycling area and any attenuation measures. Page 85 Flood Risk Management 7.25 The drainage proposals should be in accordance with that set out in the Flood Risk Assessment dated September 2010. Peak discharges at the site should be restricted to 106 l/s. Drainage conditions recommended – submission of details of works for dealing with surface water discharges/ completion of approved surface water drainage works/ provision of oil interceptor to intercept all surface water from areas to be used by vehicles/ surface water will be subject to balancing flows to achieve a minimum 30% reduction of existing peak flow rates/ details for on site storage provided for additional run off from storm events up to the 1 in 100 yr + climate change to be submitted.
Climate Change Officer, Sustainable Development Unit 7.26 The details provided in the BREEAM statement indicate the attainment of a BREEAM 'Very Good' rating which is the Council's current minimum requirement for new development. However, given the budgetary and other pressures normally encountered in the design development and tendering processes of projects generally it is of some concern that the predicted total score is only just above the minimum score required at this relatively early stage of the development (56.31% scored, 55% required for a 'Very Good' rating).
7.27 Further scrutiny of the BREEAM sustainability statement provided for this development reveals relatively low scores for six out of the ten different sections of the assessment. Particularly disappointing are the very low scores for 'Health and Wellbeing' (33.33%), 'Energy' (32%) and 'Materials' (38%).
7.28 There are a number of categories where the number of credits achieved could be readily increased. It is considered essential that the proposal's BREEAM sustainability statement is made more robust and the attainment of the 'Very Good' rating more likely by increasing the overall score by at least four or five points.
7.29 Suggestions are made with regard to specific sections of the submitted BREEAM statement in order to enable the developer and the design team to achieve an improved score as mentioned above. In particular these include the following areas;
x Reduction of C02 emissions and Low/zero carbon technologies - This is a particularly disappointingly low score for such a key section. The developer is urged to reconsider the proposals for this section and make a significant improvement to the number of credits achieved. (Ene 5 Low/zero carbon technologies.
x Cyclist facilities - No indication of commitment of any shower/changing facilities although this is committed to as part of the travel plan
x Construction site waste management - This a low score and there is significant scope for improvement.
x Compacter/baler - The developer is urged to also provide on-site glass collection/recycling facilities for the general public, in addition to that provided at the nearby Co-op store, thereby avoiding the necessity of additional journeys.
7.30 It is recommend that the achievement of a BREEAM very good rating is made a condition of any planning permission which may be granted.
Page 86 7.31 In response to the comments from the Sustainability Officer Tesco comment that the SPD encourages developments to meet BREEAM Very Good. The development meets BREEAM very good as is outlined in the pre-assessment. Therefore the application is compliant with the policy and there is no policy basis to require any further work at this stage in relation to this matter. Conditions as set out at the start of the report are recommended to deal with further assessment.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Development Plan 8.2 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) and the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). The RSS was issued in May 2008 and includes a broad development strategy for the region, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development.
8.3 Relevant RSS policies are considered to be; E2: States that town centres should be the focus for offices, retail, leisure and entertainment. ENV5: New development of more than 1,000m2 of non residential floorspace should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low- carbon sources, unless having regard to the type development involved and its design, this is not feasible or viable.
8.4 The site is not covered by a particular designation within the Unitary Development Plan, the following UDP policies are relevant to the consideration of the application:
SP6 – Distribution of land for employment uses SP7 - Priority to be given to enhancement of the City Centre and town centres GP5 – General planning considerations; GP11 – Sustainable Design Principles E7 – Loss of Employment Land to other uses N12 – Urban design principles; N13 – Design of new buildings; N24 – Development abutting green belt, green corridors or other open land N25 – Boundaries of sites to be designed in a positive manner T2 – New development and highway safety; T5 – Access for pedestrians and cyclists; T6 – Provision for disabled people; S5 - Criteria for out-of-centre major retail development (above 2,500 sq.m gross) BD5 – New buildings, design and amenity;
8.5 The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. It recognises Wetherby as a Major Settlement. Relevant policies are:
P2 – Sets out acceptable uses within and on the edge of town centres, and includes supermarkets and is subject to a sequential assessment. Page 87 P5 – Sets out the approach to accommodating new food stores across Leeds and directs such stores towards town and local centres. P8 – Sets out the approach for sequential and impact assessments for town centre uses. It requires proposals which have a total gross floor area of 1,500m² to be accompanied by sequential and impact assessments. P10 – Relates to good design. T2 – Requires new development to be located in accessible locations. EN1 – Relates to climate change.
8.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions SPD. Travel Plans SPD Sustainable Design & Construction SPD “Building for Tomorrow Today”
National Planning Policy and Guidance 8.7 From 27 March 2012 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) took the place of the PPS’s and PPG’s and is now a material consideration when making planning decisions. The NPPF sets out the range of the Government’s planning policies and sets out the requirements for the planning system but only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. In particular there is an emphasis on decision making at a local level where communities and their accountable Council’s can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of communities through up to date development plans to achieve the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainable development. These dimensions give rise to the need for planning system to perform a number of roles:
- The economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.
- The social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being;
- The environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
8.8 Paragraph 14 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which means:
“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this (NPPF) framework taken as a whole; or
Page 88 - specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.”
8.9 Section 2 sets out the approach towards ensuring the vitality of town centres. It stipulates that Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
8.10 Paragraph 26 requires that “ when assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPA’s should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m). This should include assessment of:
x The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and x The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local customer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area….”
8.11 At paragraph 27 the NPPF advises that:
“Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.”
8.12 The NPPF acknowledges that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It advises that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. At paragraph 64 is states:
Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
8.13 Ministerial Statement – Planning for Growth, March 2011.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES
1. Loss of employment Land 2. Retail policy 3. Highway matters 4. Design and Layout of proposed store 5. Landscaping 6. Relationship to surrounding residential properties 7. Planning Obligations
10.0 APPRAISAL
1. Loss of employment land/ alternative uses for the site Page 89 10.1 Policy E7 in the UDPR concerns the use of land currently or last in use as employment land, and provides that uses outside of the B Use Classes will not be permitted unless; the site is not reserved for specific types of employment use/ sufficient alternative employment sites exist both district wide and within the locality/ the proposal would not result in environmental, amenity or traffic problems.
10.2 The site is 1.24 ha and considered to be a moderately-sized site in terms of employment land within the immediate locality of South Leeds. The site, together with neighbouring employment and commercial premises comprise an “island” of industrial, warehouse and commercial uses within a built-up area predominantly residential area.
10.3 The applicant has submitted a report on employment land issues and it is understood that the building which formerly occupied the site (Jubilee House) had been vacant for at least 4 years prior to its demolition at the end of 2007.
10.4 Although there are residential properties opposite the site on Old Lane, which acts as a local distributor road, there is little evidence that the site is inherently unsuitable for employment or commercial use. However, given that the site is cleared and in light of the current market situation it considered unlikely that speculative employment use would come forward on the site.
10.5 In relation to employment land available in the locality of the site, the applicant has assessed an area within 15 minutes peak drive time of the site which is considered to be an extensive search area. The applicant’s assessment identified between 22 and 26 years of supply for B1c/B2/B8 and this is considered to be a generous supply.
10.6 However in terms of the immediate locality the applicant’s assessment references a 20-min peak time bus travel contour which is a much smaller area and covers areas that are mainly residential but with notable enclaves of employment space along the Dewsbury Road and Elland Road corridors. The supply here is far less generous and in the worst case scenario amounts to little more than 5 years supply. In contrast, however, a mid-range scenario indicates a supply of between 11 and 13 years. The best-case scenario suggests that the existing supply, supplemented by windfalls, would last almost indefinitely. In terms of the most reduced time period of potential supply, it is noted that there are important areas of employment potential which lie just outside the bus contour and given the residential character of the area immediately surrounding the site this is important. To remove the site from employment use would be unlikely to have a measurable effect on ease of access in this part of the city to employment sites.
10.7 From the above, it is clear that the loss of this site to an alternative commercial use would not pose any harm to the Council’s interests in providing opportunities for local employment uses and there is no objection raised under Policy E7 of the UDP Review. Furthermore, the proposed development would also generate employment.
10.8 The objection letter received on behalf of Asda raises the issue of the identification of this site in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The site is identified as site No. 341 in the assessment – former Jubilee House. The site conclusions in respect of the SHLAA recognise that the commercial nature of the surroundings may be a constraint of this site coming forward for housing development. The SHLAA will inform the housing allocation Development Plan Document, however as the Council has not advanced to this stage, the Page 90 inclusion of the site within the SHLAA is not considered to be a reason to refuse alternative uses on the site if they are considered acceptable based on other considerations. In any case, the surrounding industrial uses of the site could potentially restrict housing development from coming forward on this site.
2. Retail policy
10.9 The underlying theme from the NPPF is the presumption of favour of sustainable development. Section 2 is specifically entitled ‘Ensuring vitality of town centres’ and sets out the approach towards ensuring the vitality of town centres. It stipulates that Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Proposals for retail development should specifically include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local customer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area. The NPPF provides that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
10.10 In terms of local policy within the development plan, the application should be assessed against Policy S5 of the UDP Review 2006 which advises that major retail developments (above 2, 500m 2 gross as set out at para 9.2.7) outside defined S1 and S2 centre’s will not normally be permitted unless;
i. the type of development cannot satisfactorily be accommodated within or adjacent to an existing S1 or S2 centre; ii. it can be demonstrated that it will not undermine the vitality and viability of the city centre or any S2 or local centre or prejudice the local provision of essential daily needs shopping. The policy goes on to advise that it will normally be necessary for the applicant to carry out a formal study of impact on nearby centre’s and an assessment of changes in travel patterns. iii. It addresses qualitative and/ or quantitative deficiencies in shopping facilities iv. It is readily accessibly to those without private transport v. It does not entail the use of land designated for housing, key employment sites or land located in the green belt or open countryside.
10.11 Policy S5 is considered to be broadly consistent with national guidance set out within the NPPF, with particular reference to the sequential test and impact assessment.
10.12 The site at Old Lane is located more than 300m from the boundary of the nearest identified centre at Town Street, Beeston. According to the NPPF definition the site is classified as out of centre and must accord with the sequential assessment criteria set out at para. 24 of the NPPF. Additionally, because the gross area proposed is more than 2,500 sq m it should also be assessed against the impact criteria set out at para. 26 of the NPPF. A Retail Assessment has been submitted with the application (RA).
10.13 Relevant case law on retail policy, specifically on the matter of sequential sites, comes from a Supreme Court judgement in a matter between Tesco Stores Ltd and Dundee City Council (21/03/12). Whilst the crux of Tesco’s case was the Page 91 misinterpretation of policy applied by Dundee CC in approving an Asda superstore the judgement also raised important matters on sequential assessment.
10.14 The judgement provides authority for the proposition that the suitability of a site in sequential terms is being directed to the developers’ proposals, not some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the planning authority. However the case also underlines the principle that the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities. The applicants are expected to have prepared proposals in accordance with the recommended approach, by, for example having had regard to the circumstances of the particular town centre, to have given consideration to the scope for accommodating the development in a different form, and to have thoroughly assessed sequentially preferable locations.
Sequential Assessment
10.15 As the site occupies an out-of-centre location it is necessary for the applicant to carry out a sequential assessment of possible alternative sites in accordance with policy requirements. In order to assess impact and to undertake a sequential assessment the applicant’s Retail Assessment (RA) defines a Primary Catchment Area (PCA) where it is considered that a store of this size would draw the majority (90%) of its trade. The catchment area proposed is that of a 5 minute drive time from the site which the applicants consider to be a reasonable catchment for the store which is primarily selling convenience goods. The catchment area includes the UDP S2 town centre at Dewsbury Road and S4 local centre at Town Street, Beeston. It also includes local centres at Beeston Hill and Tommy Wass (Dewsbury Road) which have been identified in the emerging Core Strategy. It should be noted however the Council policy is to apply a 10 minute drive time catchment area; this is included in the Core Strategy (draft 2012).
10.16 The applicant’s RA assesses the availability, suitability and viability of sites in centres within the Primary Catchment Area of 5 minute drive time from the site. Specifically the RA considers the following sites; x Tommy Wass Public House x Former Kwik Save Store, Dewsbury Road x Police Station, Dewsbury Road x Former Kwik Save, Holbeck.
10.17 Following negotiations the applicants also reviewed other sites which the Council considered to be sequentially preferable including Crescent Works on Dewsbury Road and an area of demolished housing in Holbeck (The Runswicks).
10.18 All sites are dismissed by the applicant, largely for being too small and unable to meet the requirements of a retail store designed for weekly food shopping. The following conclusions are drawn:
x Former Kwik Save, Dewsbury Road – this is considered to be smaller than the proposed store and therefore not sufficient to provide a supermarket with the floorspace required in the PCA in order to draw trade back from larger stores within the wider Household Survey Area and beyond. This site has recently received permission for alterations and will sub-divide, half of the site is now to be used by Iceland.
Page 92 x Police Station site, Dewsbury Road – this site is not available and is not in a suitable location to meet the needs of Beeston residents, being some 2.2Km to the east of the centre of Beeston. Car ownership in the area is low (40%) and therefore many residents would be unable to get there on foot or by a direct bus service. The size of the site is also not suitable for accommodating the scale of food store proposed, furthermore development of this site would likely require removal of important trees, poor access and poor store layout. For these reasons the site is not a genuine alternative to the application site and is not suitable for the development proposed. NB The Council maintains that the police station site is available in the near future, works on the replacement police headquarters are under way and this will result in the site becoming available within the next year. This is considered to be a reasonable time for delivery for in centre and edge of centre sites. The site also has a Dewsbury Road frontage if the current Tesco Express on Dewsbury Road were to be included within the site.
x The Runswicks, Holbeck – Holbeck is an identified local centre in the draft core strategy, which given the status must be given little weight. This location is therefore considered to be out of centre and no more sequentially preferable than the application site. Again however the site would not be suitable to accommodate the scale of food store proposed and would not serve the Beeston population. NB the site is now acknowledged to be earmarked for housing redevelopment, however there are other small sites within Holbeck that could come forward within the next few years.
x Tommy Wass Public House – The floorspace here is less than 1/8 of the size of the proposed store and therefore not suitable or viable for conversion to a store. In addition the number of parking spaces and service provision would not be sufficient. Given the sites location at the junction of Dewsbury Road and Old Lane then access and servicing of the site would be difficult.
x Former Kwik Save, Holbeck – This site is considered to be outside of the PCA but is considered anyway, it is outside of the proposed Hunslet local centre and isolated from other retail units. It is less than 1/3 of the size of the proposed store and contains only a fraction of parking spaces. It is therefore not suitable or viable to provide for a weekly food shop. NB the site is now being planned to be redeveloped as a specialist Turkish food store.
10.19 The conclusion is therefore reached by the applicants that there are no suitable, available or viable alternative locations within or on the edge of town or local centres within the PCA or HAS. The proposal therefore satisfies the sequential test.
10.20 The Council acknowledges that the sites identified above are not going to allow the delivery of the size of store proposed however it is not considered that the evidence on which the assertions are based is complete and full. For example it is not accepted that the applicants have demonstrated flexibility in the scale and layout of store propositions when considering the sites, both practice guidance and the Dundee judgement require that both applicants and LPA’s are flexible. It is not considered in this case that the applicants have adequately demonstrated flexibility in their business model, or put forward enough justification to fully discount other sequentially preferable sites, particularly in the Dewsbury Road area given the primacy of this area in the retail hierarchy. For example there are large areas of industrial development very close to the Dewsbury Road town centre but there is no assessment of whether any of these areas are available, viable or suitable.
Page 93 10.21 Dewsbury Road is acknowledged to be a town centre that is poorly performing in terms of its provision and that it lacks the large anchor store that could stimulate further commercial and retail provision. Both the UDPR and the draft Core Strategy identify it as a town centre that requires promotion and redevelopment and it is seen as being beneficial to encourage regeneration here. It is sustainably located with a main public transport route running through it, and located within walking distance of a large residential district which has large car ownership. It is considered that should Tesco open a store of the size being proposed here, this will detrimentally impact on the likelihood of any food store provider looking to open up in or around Dewsbury Road. The potential future impact therefore could be negative and for this reason it is considered that the sequential site search should have been more thorough and considered.
Retail capacity
10.22 The applicant has looked at the issue of retail capacity as this can be relevant to the consideration of impact.
10.23 The applicant’s assessment of available capacity focuses on the defined PCA which is derived from a 5 minute drive time catchment area. For the purposes of assessing impact, as well as the existing centres which are within the PCA it is also noted that Sainsbury’s at White Rose is within the catchment area. Hunslet S2 centre and Holbeck local centre lie just outside the identified catchment area.
10.24 In relation to the assessment of impact, the RA uses the Household survey results from the survey commissioned (October 2008) used to support the Tesco proposal at Benyon House, Middleton (application ref 09/01727/FU ). It is considered unlikely that expenditure patterns have changed significantly since 2008 and therefore it is considered reasonable to use these survey results in the RA. The opening of the Tesco Express on Dewsbury Road (previously an international food store) is the only notable change.
10.25 Based on data provided in the applicant’s RA it is possible to estimate existing convenience expenditure by store / location. It is considered that approximately 46% of main food shop expenditure from the catchment area is spent at Morrisons, Hunslet. The next largest expenditure after this can be attributed to Sainsbury’s White Rose and Morrisons, Morley with approximately 13% and 11% of main food expenditure estimated to be spent at these locations.
10.26 The RA looks ahead 5 years to 2015 and estimates available expenditure based on population projections and expenditure per head in the PCA from data provided by MapInfo. It concludes that £44.49m of expenditure will be available for convenience goods in 2015 from the PCA.
10.27 Based on information provided within the RA and including Sainsbury’s at the White Rose Centre within the catchment area and also accounting for additional turnover which could be generated by the extant permission for a small extension at Netto store, Old Lane adjacent to the site, it is considered that there is a residual capacity of some £31.72m of expenditure within the PCA.
10.28 It is also evident that the main S2 centre within the catchment area is not functioning as a town centre and lacks the offer of a main food store. Therefore it is accepted that although the catchment area is derived from an out of centre location in terms of the Old Lane site, there is a deficiency in qualitative retail provision to serve local residents. Page 94 10.29 The applicants RA considers that the proposal will claim back expenditure leaking from the catchment area. However, it is considered that no allowance has been made for existing centres to increase or decrease market shares within this catchment. In particular Dewsbury Road and emerging centres will be affected by the proposed store and future development/ enhancement/ maintenance will depend on market share increasing.
10.30 Furthermore, since the catchment area is drawn up from an out of centre location, it is considered that shopping patterns should be looked at in more detail and appropriate expenditure within the catchment that is spent within existing centres should be looked at. For instance, it is not inappropriate for some expenditure to go to Hunslet town centre as part of the catchment area is closer to Hunslet town centre than the proposed store location. Indeed, there must be some overlapping of catchment areas. It is not considered justified that an out-of-centre store should claw back trade from town centre stores just outside its PCA as it is considered that this expenditure should be allocated to these centres.
10.31 It is considered that Morissons at Hunslet relies on trade from the PCA accounting for nearly 40% of all expenditure in the PCA and the impact to this store needs to be robustly assessed. Careful consideration also needs to be given to the city wide strategy for new retail provision and strengthening the vitality and viability of existing and emerging centres. Furthermore, there are planned strategies that have not yet been delivered which could again reduce expenditure leakage.
Impact 10.32 The NPPF advises that evidence regarding the impact of the proposal should be considered. The applicant’s RA has considered the impact of the proposal on existing centres as well as the cumulative impact of the proposed store and recent permissions.
10.33 Table 7 of the applicant’s RA shows the trade diversion effect of the proposed store on identified town and local centres in terms of convenience goods as follows; x 22% trade diversion from Beeston Local Centre x 0% Beeston Hill; x 8% Dewsbury Road; x 10% Tommy Wass, x 11% for Hunslet x 10% for Morrisons at Morley.
10.34 The RA concludes that none of the impacts are significantly adverse and will not impact on the vitality and viable of the centres.
10.35 Other larger impacts are 16% on Netto, Beeston and 10% on Sainsbury’s, White Rose but as these are out of centre stores the impact in these cases is not a planning consideration.
10.36 The trade diversion from Co-op Beeston is estimated to equate to £0.71m and the trade diversion from Morrisons, Hunslet is estimated to be £6.52m and the impact on these stores is considered in further detail below.
Impact on existing centres Hunslet
Page 95 10.37 The applicant argues that Morrisons Hunslet is significantly overtrading. The objection letter on behalf of Morrisons suggests that trade diversion away from the Morrisons store at Hunslet is underplayed in the applicants study. Officers have tried to take a more cautious approach to assessing the impact of the proposed store on the Hunslet centre, putting forward an alternative assessment of the figures to increase the level of trade diversion. Whilst Morrisons may remain in a position of overtrading against the company average it is considered that Morrisons has a fundamental role to the centre. Impact does not solely relate to trade diversion from the store but also implications for small retailers and other town centre uses if visitors to Morrisons, the town centre anchor, decline.
Beeston local centre 10.38 An objection letter has been received on behalf of the Co-operative Group, on the grounds that the proposal would result in a significant impact on the viability and vitality of the Beeston centre and in particular, the Co-operative store. The Council’s assessment of trade diversion shows a pro rata trade diversion of £0.71m which represents a 24% trade diversion of in centre convenience expenditure within the PCA away from Beeston local centre. The applicant’s RA also concludes that the greatest quantitative impact of the proposed store on existing convenience turnover would be the 22% trade diversion from Beeston Local Centre – a slightly lower figure than the Council’s estimation.
10.39 The Co Op foodstore is the anchor at Beeston Local Centre and the only store selling convenience goods. Although the level of trade diversion away from the centre is a concern, it is considered that the store could continue to trade successfully, above the company’s national average, and focusing mainly on catering for top up shopping trips.
10.40 The trade diversion from Beeston centre to the proposed store is of concern, it is considered that the proposed store would conflict with the existing role of the Co Op in that although the proposed Tesco store will provide for weekly shopping provision, it is inevitable that Tesco will also cater for top up shopping which Co Op primarily relies upon and there are therefore potentially significant impact on this store and in turn Beeston Local Centre. Whilst the Co Op store is the only store in this local centre selling convenience goods, the rest of the centre relies on the trips generated by the anchor store. Again, it is considered that the applicant has not assessed the impact to Beeston local centre as a result in a decline in visitors.
Dewsbury Road S2 centre 10.41 There is a lack of a food store at Dewsbury Road and therefore the applicant’s retail assessment considered there will be limited trade diversion from this centre (8%). It is however considered important that in order to maintain this centre’s status of town/ district centre it should be able to support a larger food store.
10.42 The Leeds city centre, town and local centres study recommends urgent investigation to identify edge of centre sites to bring forward appropriately sized store at Dewsbury Road to support its function as a town centre and as a major regeneration initiative for the centre. This is now being progressed in terms of the police station site which will be vacated in the next 2 years, along with potential other sites. Tesco proposals at Old Lane would undermine potential for such development and Dewsbury Road would therefore be likely to become a lower order centre. It is considered that the development of a store at Dewsbury Road depends on trade from its catchment area which would have significant overlap with that of the proposed Tesco and would prejudice the UDPR strategy for town centres (policy S2) and would pre-judge the decision in the LDF as to the role of Dewsbury Road. Page 96 Holbeck emerging local centre 10.43 There is an identified lack of existing retail provision to serve the LS11 5 post code sector (the Holbeck area) and the Leeds City, town and local centres study identifies a boundary for a local center at Holbeck. There is an existing vacant Kwik Save site within the identified centre and furthermore, a site at Charles Street site close to new housing development on Holbeck Moor is identified in the Beeston and Holbeck Regeneration Plan to help address the deficiency of provision in this area. The larger site however, the Runswicks, is now unlikely to be considered for retail and town centre uses. It is considered that in addition to directing new retail development to Dewsbury Road S2 centre, new retail development should also not hinder the delivery of a retail opportunity in Holbeck.
10.44 There are concerns that the Tesco proposal at Old Lane will have a detrimental impact on retail proposals for Holbeck in light of negative capacity for convenience shopping to 2016 identified in the Leeds City centre, town and local centres study as well as issues regarding commercial confidence. The prospects of delivery of even modest local centre retail development at Holbeck could be damaged by the proposed development which could draw significant trade from its catchment area.
Other centres 10.45 The Tommy Wass and Beeston Hill emerging centres (identified as future centres in the Core Strategy) mainly cater for top up food shopping trips. The Leeds City, town and local centres study recommends that local centres are appropriate for small to medium sized convenience shopping and therefore it is not considered that there will be a significantly adverse impact to the way that these centres will function.
Cumulative Impact 10.46 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires that the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments be fully assessed for any application in an out of centre location that is not in accordance with the development plan.
10.47 The planning permission granted to Asda for a retail store at Middleton (App Ref: 09/02589/FU - 2,020 sq m net floor area of convenience goods) in March 2010 is relevant to the consideration of cumulative impact. Notwithstanding the comments made on behalf of Asda and the alternative drivetime plan, Middleton District centre is considered to be outside the PCA of the proposed store at Old Lane. The applicant’s RA asserts that the proposed Old Lane store would not adversely impact upon the implementation of the Asda store and it is considered that this is a reasonable conclusion. However, the two proposals taken together could have a cumulative impact on other centres.
10.48 There are already concerns regarding impact to Hunslet centre as a result of trade diversion from Morrisons and reduced visitors to the centre, it is considered that a more robust assessment is required regarding the impact to Hunslet centre if the proposed store and the consented Middleton Asda store begin operating.
10.49 The applicant’s RA indicates that the two new stores could result in some 11.9% impact in terms of trade diversion against company average turnover level for the existing Morrisons store at Morley. In relation to Morley town centre, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this trade diversion would significantly harm the vitality and viability of Morley town centre.
Leeds City, Town and Local centres study Page 97 10.50 Following the objections to the proposal received on behalf of Morrisons in relation to their Hunslet store and on behalf of the Co-operative Group in relation to their store at Beeston local centre, it was considered that it would be useful in the assessment of the Tesco Old Lane application to take into account the results of the quantitative need analysis of the Leeds City, Town and Local Centre Study (a city- wide retail assessment being prepared by Colliers International for the City Council). It was initially expected that this report would have been available in early 2011 however this was delayed until July 2011. The Study itself will be used to contribute towards the evidence base of the Local Development Framework including the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Document. The report itself has limited status in planning terms, but is capable of being a material planning consideration. The study was commissioned to contribute to the LDF and therefore its findings are of relevance.
10.51 The Town Centre Study includes the results of a household survey undertaken in Summer 2010 to help to establish a baseline position on broad expenditure patterns across retail locations and stores in Leeds district. The household survey results have now been made fully available however and table 3 within Appendix 8d of the Study does include a breakdown of the household survey results in respect of convenience shopping destinations in each of the survey zones. The Town Centre Study separately considered expenditure on convenience and comparison goods to establish the quantitative need for each of the sectors. The study split Leeds district into 10 zones based on the Council’s area committee structure. The application site and the vast majority of the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) lies within the Inner South Zone of the study (which covers the Council wards of City & Hunslet, Middleton Park and Beeston & Holbeck). The study identifies quantitative need in each of the sub area over three time periods: 2010 to 2016, 2021 and 2026. For consideration of a planning application only the first of the time periods is relevant as the practice guidance advises that assessments of impacts should focus in particular on the first 5 years after the implementation of a proposal, in this case approximately 2017.
10.52 The retail floorspace needs assessment for convenience goods (scenario 1: low population projection) from the draft Town Centres Study shows that there is a negative retail floorspace need of 12,091m 2 net in the Inner South area for the period to 2016. This would mean that there is over capacity of convenience floorspace in the Zone which would not support the case for the new additional floorspace in the area, such as that proposed in this application, outside existing centres.
3.Highway matters
10.53 The applicant’s transport assessment estimates that a store of the size proposed may result in trip rates of 184 arrivals and 187 departures for Friday peak hour (17.00 to 18.00) and 190 arrivals and 196 departures for Saturday peak hour (12.00 to 13.00). It is considered that this estimate of the likely trip generation from the proposed development is reasonable. The applicant’s transport assessment has assessed the operation of the junctions in the vicinity of the site on the surrounding road network. Concerns relating to the roundabout junction of Town Street/Beeston Road/Old Lane and potential queue lengths on Old Lane as a result of traffic from the store have been resolved by way of proposed highway works to this mini roundabout to Old Lane/ Town Street/ Beeston Road. The proposed highway works will increase the capacity of this junction to allow 2 cars to queue at the Beeston Road western approach to the mini roundabout. The Applicant has also agreed to contribute the sum of £50,000 to the Council to monitor the traffic on Old Lane and Page 98 surrounding roads and to pay for any traffic calming measures that may be required to control traffic relating to the proposed development.
10.54 Objections have been received regarding potential traffic congestion as a result of the proposed development. The applicant’s transport assessment has been considered by the traffic management section and it is considered that subject to the proposed highway works at the junction of Old Lane/ Town Street, the surrounding highway network can accommodate the proposed development. It also needs to be borne in mind that the site could be redeveloped for alternative employment uses which would also generate a certain amount of traffic on the highway network.
10.55 In terms of the proposed layout of the store, this has been revised during the course of the application to alter the proposed vehicular access arrangements. The proposal to use the existing vehicular access for servicing only is acceptable and the proposed separate vehicular access from Moorhouse Avenue is wholly within the applicant’s ownership and is acceptable and this also includes a pedestrian route through the car park although a separate pedestrian entrance from Old Lane is also proposed.
10.56 A new 4m wide raised toucan pedestrian crossing is proposed adjacent to the site on Old Lane to improve the crossing facilities in relation to the main pedestrian entrance to the store. Objections have been received from the Post Office as the upgraded crossing would result in the loss of 1 on street parking bay in front of the Post Office. Part of this area is already marked keep clear and the proposal has been amended from the original scheme so that the loss of parking bays is reduced to 1 bay only. If the crossing were relocated elsewhere on Old Lane it would result in the loss of up to 4 parking spaces from existing on street parking lay bys. On balance this loss of a parking space is considered acceptable and on street parking lay-by facilities remain close by. The Post Office have requested a guarantee that further restrictions will not be implemented in the future, however such a guarantee cannot be provided although it is not anticipated that any will be required.
10.57 163 car parking spaces are proposed within the site and the applicant has provided a car parking accumulation calculation undertaken which estimates a maximum requirement of 149 spaces on Friday and 156 spaces on Saturday, the peak times for Supermarket shopping. At peak times this equates to 91% and 95% of the maximum capacity of the proposed 163 space car park.
10.58 Highways advice is that at over 90% of capacity, the operation of a car park can be affected and therefore the number of parking spaces proposed is considered to be the minimum acceptable to support the development and could not be reduced any further. Nevertheless, the store is considered to be in a sustainable location and a travel plan is provided as part of the application and the applicant will contribute to upgrading the existing bus stop in front of the site on Old Lane. The level of parking provision for the development together with these other measures to encourage visits by alternative modes of transport is considered acceptable.
4. Design and Layout of proposed store
10.59 The proposed store building will be sited along the southern boundary of the site which adjoins industrial units. The customer car park is proposed to the north of the store itself. Setting the store back within the site is considered to be a reasonable siting given that the site is not within a centre and there are residential properties immediately facing the site. This is also a response to the landscaped boundaries
Page 99 of the site which restrict views of the proposed building and any frontage opportunities.
10.60 The landscape setting of the site is considered important and is discussed below. The layout retains the protected tree belt along the eastern boundary and although planting is removed from the boundary with Moorhouse Avenue, new planting is proposed. There is a level difference of some 1 – 1.5m from street level at Old Lane to the main platform of the development site. The proposed store maintains a significant landscape setting around the built development and this accounts for the level difference within the site. The landscape proposals are discussed in more detail below.
10.61 The site’s wider context is a combination of both housing to the east and industrial units to the south and west. Notable features of the site’s context are that the area is generally low rise and brickwork is the predominant material. The size of the store proposed and the scale of development is considered to be compatible with the surroundings.
10.62 In terms of the store’s design, whilst the predominant material is the larch cladding proposed on the main elevations, brickwork has been introduced to the store design to reflect the context of the surroundings. The materials are considered appropriate to the area and will result in a contemporary building which will sit comfortably within its surroundings. Objection letters raise concerns regarding impact the character of the area; however it is considered that the proposed store is respectful to the character of the area and in making use of a vacant site will improve the appearance of the area. The applicant’s initial assessment shows that BREEAM standard of very good will be achieved and conditions are recommended to secure this.
10.63 A canopy is proposed to the front of the store, the drawings submitted indicate a canopy projecting significantly forward of the store towards the pedestrian entrance to the site. This projection is considered to be too prominent and details of a reduced canopy are suggested to be dealt with by condition.
10.64 A clock tower is proposed at the pedestrian entrance to the site, opposite the post office on Old Lane and this is considered to be a good focal point of the scheme to help identify the store. The pedestrian approach to the store has been improved through the course of the application with some car parking to the east of the building removed which allows for a direct pedestrian access to the store entrance to be created from Old Lane via steps/ ramp approach and a new crossing to be provided within the highway.
5. Landscaping
10.65 Landscaping is considered to be a key characteristic of the site and the trees along the eastern boundary are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and are important to the streetscene of Old Lane. Mature landscaping is also present along the boundary to Moorhouse Avenue and is important in the assimilation of the site with the allotments and playing fields to the north.
10.66 The initial proposals for the development raised concerns regarding the relationship of the proposed parking and retaining wall to protected trees along the Old Lane boundary. The proposal has been revised and the additional parking to the east of the store building has been removed which allows further space around the protected trees. Page 100 10.67 All existing trees along Old Lane adjacent to the car park are retained as part of the proposal and this is considered to provide a good landscape buffer to the site. These protected trees consist of a mixture of species comprising Norway maple, beech and horse chestnut as well as London Planes and common lime trees. A retaining wall is proposed along the Old Lane boundary and it is considered that subject to details regarding the construction, this can be achieved without harming the existing trees. A detailed method statement should be provided prior to construction to show how the works will be carried out without disturbance to the protected trees.
10.68 In relation to the Moorhouse Avenue boundary, one of the two mature London Plane trees along this boundary is to be retained however one tree will be removed in order to create the new access into the site. This is compensated for by way of new planting and it is considered that sufficient space is provided along this boundary of the site to achieve a robust planting scheme.
10.69 Limited planting is proposed within the car park itself and this is along the main pedestrian route through the store car park. On balance this is considered acceptable given the landscaped belt around the north and east of the site. Use of careful construction techniques will be required to increase the potential root zone for these trees. A hedge is proposed between the car park and the service road into the site. The long-term management of the landscaping could be secured by way of a condition.
6. Relationship to surrounding residential properties
10.70 The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west and south of the site and the proposal is compatible with these surrounding uses. Residential properties are to the east of the site facing the eastern elevation of the proposed store and the boundary with the car park and therefore the relationship to these properties needs to be considered. The proposed store and car park is to be set within a landscaped buffer of some 10m minimum depth along the entire Old Lane boundary of the site. There is a separation distance of over 30m between the residential properties and the built development area of the site (car park and store building); this distance includes the landscaped boundary of the site which is largely unaltered.
10.71 A brick boundary wall is proposed along the car park boundary of the site set behind the retained trees along Old Lane. This brick boundary wall continues around the corner of the site into Moorhouse Avenue, again set behind the landscaping. This boundary wall and the landscaped boundary will screen the car park from the residential properties and the streetscene. It is considered this is a good quality boundary to the site and retains the landscaped character whilst screening the car park and protecting visual amenity.
10.72 Residential properties facing the site currently look over a cleared site with 2m paladin fencing along the boundary together with the existing protected trees. It is considered that the proposed development is respectful to the scale of development in the area and retains the positive feature of the site which is the landscaped boundary. It is considered that the proposal will not result in loss of residential amenity from poor outlook or overdominance.
10.73 The proposed store building is sited to the west of No’s 95 to 101 Old Lane and is at a height of some 7.6m above street level. Objections have been received that the proposed development could result in loss of light as well as privacy. The Page 101 applicant’s section drawings indicate that the store itself will be approximately 1.5m higher than the ridgeline to the roof of 97 Old Lane. The store building is however lower than the canopy of the existing trees which will screen the building itself. It is considered that the development will not result in any unacceptable loss of light to residential properties on Old Lane. In relation to privacy the store is contained within the site and would not result in any overlooking from staff or customers of the store. It is recognised that there will be increased footfall in the vicinity of the pedestrian entrance on Old Lane, however this street is currently a primary route through Beeston and is not considered that the proposal will compromise privacy of nearby residents.
10.74 Objections have been received in relation to increased noise associated with the development. Again, this needs to be considered against the previous employment uses of the site which could in themselves have generated noise in association with their potential uses. The applicant has submitted a noise report which identifies the principal noise sources relating to the development will be noise from fixed mechanical services plant, bulk deliveries, car parking activity and road traffic noise. The noise report concludes that the store could operate without servicing and operating hours restrictions without harming the amenity of the local residents subject to a condition to ensure that any plant and machinery achieve an appropriate noise rating level.
10.75 Notwithstanding the noise report’s justification of unrestricted hours of operation and delivery, the proposal is for the store to operate until 10pm and it is also considered that deliveries should be restricted to 11pm. A condition is recommended to ensure that noise levels from all plant and machinery are 5dB below background noise levels when measured from the nearest noise sensitive property. This is similar to the condition recommended in the applicant’s noise report which instead specifies what that level should achieve. The Environmental Health Officer has advised however that this condition should relate to the background noise level at the time the measurements are taken.
10.76 Recycling facilities would be a further potential source of noise and a condition is proposed for submission of details should they be proposed at the store and attenuation measures may be required.
10.77 The service yard for the store is proposed to be located in the north western corner of the site which is surrounded by commercial/ industrial uses. It is considered that the location of the service yard is acceptable and is away from residential properties and should therefore reduce any potential disturbance from delivery vehicles and from unloading activities. The applicant’s noise report also notes that that delivery activity will be screened by the store building itself. The report assesses the potential impact from delivery activity to 99 Old Lane and considers that even deliveries at night could be carried out without adversely affecting residential amenity. Nevertheless, a condition is proposed to restrict deliveries to no later than 11pm as advised by the Environmental Health Officer.
10.78 In relation to potential noise from traffic generated from the proposed development, this is also assessed in the applicant’s noise report against DEFRA guidance (March 2010) to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, together with guidance from the World Health Organisation and guidance in PPG24. Clearly there will be a noticeable increase in comings and goings at the site as a result of the development, however the site is on an existing well used road and it is considered that the additional activity will not result in undue loss of amenity to the surrounding residential properties. Page 102 10.79 Predicted noise levels from within the store car park are concluded in the applicant’s noise assessment to be within the WHO guideline noise levels and are also predicted to be below the existing noise climate.
11.0 CONCLUSION
11.1 The NPPF stresses that applications must be considered against all relevant policies as only then can the issues of sustainable development properly be assessed. The issues around this proposal are complex and numerous and should be considered in conjunction with the neighbouring retail proposal. The following conclusions can be drawn. 11.2 The site is located in a sustainable location, it is close to public transport facilities that link to Beeston local centre, Tommy Wass local centre, and to the City Centre and White Rose, as well as other areas that can be reached via the motorway network. The site does not however have a train line. The site is also located within an area of dense residential population, where car ownership is acknowledged to be low and where issues of unemployment etc. are slightly higher than average. It is noted that the two existing/proposed local centres are within walking distances of the sites location and so could serve the local residents with daily needs, however it is also accepted that the constraints of these local centres would not allow for a larger scale food store. Many local residents are in support of the proposals citing the benefits of having a larger scale food store in the vicinity. 11.3 The proposed store would result in new jobs, both in construction and built phases and these could be secured, as much as possible, for the local area through a s106 agreement as has been done elsewhere. The provision of jobs would undoubtedly have wider benefits for the local area, increasing employment rates, helping to tackle deprivation and providing additional income that could be spent in the local area. However the proposal could also result in the decline of existing stores at Beeston local centre and at Tommy Wass, as well as small scale local convenience stores. It is noted that the Post Office has raised concerns that if services are duplicated it will potentially reduce their business. There are therefore negative economic impacts as well as positive ones. 11.4 The redevelopment of the site will have large benefits for the street scene of the area given the very poor visual amenity that currently exists. There could be potential uplift in the overall appearance of the area that could again stimulate economic growth and regeneration. 11.5 Trees around the site are to be saved and preserved and landscaping overall enhanced which will have obvious biodiversity benefits. 11.6 The proposal if allowed is considered to impact negatively on the attractiveness of Dewsbury Road town centre to potential food store operators in this area. There is a need for such development in this town centre in order for this centre to provide the services and facilities that should be provided at that level of the hierarchy. A new food store operator in or close to that centre could stimulate jobs, income and visual enhancements that could kick start regeneration of the wider area. Without this it is likely that Dewsbury Road will continue in its downward spiral with potential for further economic loss. 11.7 In weighing up the issues it is accepted that there would be potential economic benefits and that there is support from local communities, however it is still the case that this is a town centre use being proposed in an out of centre location and it is likely to detrimentally impact on the ability of Dewsbury Road, and potentially also Holbeck, to provide retail and economic vitality for their respective areas. This Page 103 would effectively go against policy in both the UDPR and the draft Core Strategy which seeks to promote Dewsbury Road as a town centre and to bring about opportunities for growth to take place here. Given this conflict with policy and the potential disbenefits, it is not considered that the proposal can be considered to represent sustainable development and is therefore recommended for refusal.
Background Papers: Planning application file Certificate of Ownership: signed by applicant
Page 104 10/04404/FU
EAST PLANS PANEL °
PRODUCED BY COMMUNICATIONS, GRAPHICS & MAPPING, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567Page 105 1/1500 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Agenda Item 12
Originator: Victoria Hinchliff Walker
Tel: 0113 222 4409
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL SOUTH AND WEST
Date: 08/11/12
Subject: APPLICATION 11/04306/OT. Demolish existing buildings and erect a retail foodstore (Class A1), with car parking, landscaping and access. Site of Asda store, Old Lane, Beeston, LS11 8AG.
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Asda Stores Ltd 18/10/11 17/01/12
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Beeston & Holbeck Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission for the following reason:
1. The proposed development comprises of a main town centre use that is located in an out of centre site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are not sequentially preferable sites available to accommodate a retail store of this general scale and form. The proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Review policies SP7, S2, S3, S3a and S5 and to the guidance set out in paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, as well as to policies contained within the draft Core Strategy (policy P5).
2. The proposed development is located outside of, but close to, the Dewsbury Road town centre. This is a centre that the UDPR places a priority on its refurbishment and enhancement and development in such proximity to it is likely to make it less attractive to future investment by similar retail provision. The failure to invest in the Dewsbury Road centre will serve to undermine its long term viability and vitality of the centre to the detriment of its retail function. As such the proposal constitutes an unsustainable form of development contrary to Page 107 policies S3A and S5 of the UDPR and paragraph 26 of the NPPF as well as to guidance contained in the draft Core Strategy.
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application for an out of centre convenience retail store is brought to Members for consideration due to the local significance of the proposal and the number of representations received in relation to the application.
1.2 The application is considered on its own merits; however Members are advised of the adjacent site proposal for an out of centre convenience retail store, application reference 10/04404/FU. This raises very similar issues in terms of retail policy and there is a need to consider cumulative impact should both proposals go ahead.
1.3 Retail advice has been sought on the proposal from Colliers International who carried out the Leeds City Centre, Town and Local Centre’s Study on behalf of the Council.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The application is submitted in outline to consider the principle of development and the means of access only. All other matters are reserved.
2.2 There is an existing Asda store (formerly Netto) on site which is 520m 2 gross floorspace and has extant permission to expand to 777m 2 gross floorspace. This application would see this current building demolished and a new, larger store built instead. The new store proposes a gross external floorspace of 3000m 2, with a gross internal floorspace of 2895m 2. The net sales area would equal 1903m 2, of which 1563m 2 would be for convenience (i.e. food and drink) sales and 340m 2 for comparison sales (i.e. clothing, shoes, furniture, pharmacy, pet products, gardening etc).
2.3 The store is proposed to be open 24 hours and aims to employ approximately 100 full time equivalents.
2.4 The proposal would result in the removal of 1720m 2 of B1 industrial space.
2.5 Although the application is outline only an indicative site plan has been submitted which shows an upgraded access to the site in the same location as the existing access point. The new store is shown to the rear in the south western corner of the site and would have maximum dimensions of 56m wide x 58 m long x 8.5m high. The store would be single storey, with a single feature lobby entrance. Proposed elevational treatments include use of brick, grey and green cladding and curtain walling. The roof would be asymmetrical.
2.6 Service areas for the store are located within the north western corner, with plant located on the western boundary at the rear of the store. A car park with approximately 195 spaces is shown to the front and side; this features disabled spaces, parent and child spaces, motorbike parking and electric car charging points. Cycle parking for visitors and staff is also included.
2.7 Soft landscaping to the front and the southern boundary is retained..
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
Page 108 3.1 The site is currently occupied by a small store located centrally within an area of hard-surfacing and parking which formerly traded as a Netto, now an Asda. To one side of the site is a group of small industrial units which are under used, with parking areas between the Asda site and the units. There is a wide grassed verge with tree planting in along the Old Lane road frontage, whilst the southern boundary is also tree and hedge lined and formed by the route of a pedestrian footpath. Trees to the eastern boundary are protected under TPO 1974/28.
3.2 To the rear of the Asda and industrial units is an area of vacant land which has been cleared of buildings and is hard surfaced. This area is bounded by high fencing, beyond which are further industrial units.
3.3 The site is set within a predominantly residential area of varying ages and character. The closest dwellings are across Old Lane to the east, and to the south of the footpath. The character is of medium density residential streets, with large areas of industrial and commercial uses spread throughout.
3.4 Old Lane is an important through route providing cross link access between Dewsbury Road and Town Street, Beeston. To the north at the junction of Old Lane and Town Street is Beeston local centre which houses a Co-operative store and several smaller uses, whilst along Town Street itself there are a number of small A1 and A2 uses. To the south at the junction of Old Lane and Dewsbury Road there is an emerging centre of Tommy Wass based around the crossroads here which has a number of small A class uses. Further south down Dewsbury Road is the White Rose Centre providing a broad range of shopping services.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Adjacent site 10/04404/FU – Erection of retail store with car parking and landscaping. Pending consideration.
Application site 4.1 11/03310/FU, Installation of refrigeration plant with enclosure and single storey staff extension to retail store. Approved. 29.09.2011.
4.2 11/02626/FU, Detached ATM machine and protection bollards to front; detached plant and enclosure to rear of retail store. Refused 26.08.2011.
4.3 10/02134/FU, Single storey side and rear extension to retail unit. Approved 05.07.2010.
4.4 09/05152/EXT, Extension of time for Planning Application 21/307/04/FU for resubmission of application for rear extension and new roof to retail unit. Approved 18.01.2010.
4.5 21/307/04/FU, Resubmission of application for rear extension and new roof to retail unit. Approved 01.12.2004.
4.6 07/06716/FU, Installation of an ATM with two anti-raid bollards to shop front. Approved 20.12.2007.
4.7 21/58/97/FU, 20m high telecommunications tower with 3 microwave dishes equipment cabin and 3m high boundary fence. Approved 11.04.1997.
Page 109 4.8 H21/72/92/, Change of use of showroom to supermarket. Approved on appeal 09.09.1992.
4.9 H21/119/83/, Change of use of 3 wholesale warehouses to 3 light industrial and wholesale warehouses. Approved 25.07.1983.
4.10 H21/6/83/, Change of use of warehouse unit to warehouse and light industrial unit. Approved 24.01.1983.
4.11 H21/200/82/, Change of use of motor car showroom to retail and whole sale frozen food centre. Refused 15.11.1982.
4.12 H21/283/81/, Detached single storey showroom with preparation area, offices and toilets, and with 14 ca r parking spaces, and landscaping. Approved 07.12.1981.
4.13 H21/427/79/, Three single storey warehouse units, with 2 storey office and with 24 car parking spaces and landscaping, to vacant site. Approved 17.09.1979.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 The applicants undertook pre-application discussions prior to submitting the formal application. These discussions focussed on highway matters, principals of site layout and appearance of the store, and were used to inform the application submission. Concerns regarding the principle of the use were raised at this stage but were to be dealt with in more detail during the application.
5.2 Since submission of the formal application further negotiations have been undertaken on issues such as the access, highway works, Travel Plan, sustainability etc. which the applicants have responded to in a timely manner. Discussions regarding planning policy and the principle of development have also been undertaken throughout with the applicants undertaking work to justify their proposal and to respond to policy comments.
5.3 The application has not undergone substantial change or alteration since submission; rather the applicants have sought to provide further justification for a store of this size in response to concerns raised. This work has included providing further sequential assessment information and responding to specific sites put forward by the Council (see Appraisal section below).
5.4 The applicants have undertaken community consultation, pre-submission work is outlined in their Statement of Community Involvement, since submission they have also carried out further advertising of the scheme through the existing store and by attending Beeston Community Forum meetings.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notices for a Departure, which were posted on 28/10/11. Publicity expired on 10/02/12. An advert was also placed in the Leeds Weekly News and details of the scheme were placed in Beeston Library. 18 responses have been received, 6 objecting to the scheme, 11 in support (which includes 1 petition with @ 1000 signatures).
6.2 Supporters of the scheme raise the following points: x Proposal will improve the streetscene and visual appearance of local area. x Proposal will result in better access to the site for visitors. Page 110 x Location of proposed store will result in better amenity for neighbouring residents. x Location is highly sustainable, easy to get to without a car and will reduce car borne trips to other supermarkets (e.g. Hunslet, White Rose). x Proposal has a number of sustainable features such as electric car points. x Provision of local jobs. x There are no large supermarkets in the area so this will fulfil a need. x Will help regeneration of the area. x There are good public transport connections to the site for residents of Beeston and Holbeck. x There will be greater choice of goods and facilities than currently offered.
6.3 Beeston Community Forum – following discussion of the application along with the Tesco scheme at a number of Forum meetings the BCF make the following points: x They support the principle of a supermarket in Beeston but have not taken a stance as to which operator should be preferred. x The Forum raise concerns about the length of time taken to determine both applications and the use of external consultants. x Local residents are strongly in favour of a supermarket and this should be given considerable weight. x Approval of a supermarket will give local residents easier access to the cheap prices which supermarkets can provide.
6.4 The following general objections to the proposal were made: x There will be an increase in traffic, congestion, HGV movements etc. which will result in more pollution, noise, disruption, dirt etc. x Increase in litter. x Area will become less safe for children. x Loss of business to existing local shops. x Already have 2 supermarkets at either end of Old Lane as well as small Asda in middle. x New building will have an overbearing effect on neighbours and result in loss of privacy. x The scheme will have a detrimental impact on character and local community. x Asda themselves objected to the Tesco scheme next door. x Other areas beyond Beeston need these types of facility more.
6.5 As well as these objections raised by residents a number of local businesses have also objected and their issues are set out below.
6.6 NJL on behalf of the Co Operative Group The Co-operative Group is a key investor and employer within Beeston and operate a food store within the Primary Shopping Frontage of Beeston centre. The proposal represents a large retail development in an out of centre location and should be refused on the following grounds; i. The proposal fails to provide an adequate retail impact assessment. x Drivers Jonas Deloitte (agents for Asda) have not carried out an adequate retail impact assessment as they consider that as the proposal represents only an “uplift” in floorspace (over extant permission) then an assessment is not required. Furthermore in a commentary of impact they utilise a 5 minute drive time catchment area and consider the methodology to be “robust”. x It is clear in PPS4 that assessments of impact are needed on any proposals that are below 2,500 m 2 which are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan and which would be likely to Page 111 have a significant impact on other centres. It is clear therefore that the proposal should be required to undertake a full and proper retail impact assessment. In the absence of such information the application should be treated as insufficient and the application refused. ii. The proposal fails to comply with sequential sites assessment. x Both PPS4 and the UDP requires evidence to be provided with a planning application to demonstrate the use of the sequential approach to site selection. DJD’s report briefly considers an alternative site at Kwik Save on Dewsbury Road but this is not a thorough assessment and does not properly demonstrate a flexible approach to food store provision. x Further policy S3A of the UDP identifies that priority should be given to the refurbishment and enhancement of the Dewsbury Road District Centre. iii. The proposal fails to consider impact of loss of employment land. x Policy E7 of the UDP and EC6 of the draft Core Strategy seeks to protect loss of employment land subject to a number of criteria. The proposal involves the loss of four industrial units including two of which are still occupied. The applicant provides no detailed information on the loss of employment land and supply in the area.
Peacock and Smith on behalf of Morrisons at Hunslet 6.7 Morrisons operate the main retail food stores in the nearby town centres of Hunslet, Morley and Rothwell, and also own and operate The Penny Hill Centre at Hunslet, they object to this Asda scheme for the following reasons: x The application site is located 500m from Beeston local centre and is considered as out of centre in PPS4 terms. The application must therefore be considered against the tests of sequential approach and impact and all the criteria in PPS4 policy EC17.1 should be met. x The application site is physically separated by residential development from the nearest local centre. x In considering in centre options the applicants have reviewed and dismissed the Kwik Save site on Dewsbury Road. Whilst this unit is smaller than the proposed replacement Asda store we do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated any flexibility in terms of the proposed scale or format of their store. Policy S3A states that priority will be given to the refurbishment of insecure centres like Dewsbury Road. It may be the case that there is a localised need for improved convenience shopping facilities in the Beeston area however we see no reason why this cannot be met from an existing vacant unit within the heart of the Dewsbury Road District Centre. A sequentially preferable site exists. x In assessing impact the applicants refer to their Primary Catchment Area (PCA) being based on a 5 minute drive time; however a plan detailing this is not provided so it is difficult to provide any commentary on this. x The cumulative impact of the development is estimated to be a drop of 11.61% on Morrisons at Hunslet. This is a significant level of impact and would reduce the number of shoppers visiting Hunslet and having a knock on impact on all of the shops and services that rely on linked trips to the Morrisons store. x The applicants base some of their assertions on the impact on Morrisons on a sensitivity test which is not provided with the documentation. x The impact assessment is based on the uplift in floorspace over and above the extant planning permission for Netto. This has a much lower sales density than Asda and therefore we consider that the impact of the proposed store on existing retail facilities has been significantly underestimated.
DPP on behalf of proposed Tesco at Old Lane 6.8 Tesco Stores Ltd strongly objects to the proposal for the following reasons: Page 112 x We believe that this application is no more than a blocking tactic to protect Asda’s own commercial interests on an out of centre site in Beeston, as their store is afforded no policy protection in terms of PPS4. x There is already an identified operator for the site (Asda own the site). x The application is not accompanied by required reports e.g. Retail Impact Assessment or Employment Land Supply Assessment, and the Transport Assessment merely reproduces figures already submitted by Tesco. x The application was submitted just over a month after Asda objected to the Tesco application on the adjacent site. x Why would Asda invest in refurbishing the existing store if there was a serious intention to invest more heavily in Beeston in the immediate future? x Based on the objection to Tesco it is claimed that a main foodstore development in Beeston would harm their investment in Middleton, we would suggest that Asda’s strategy is not in fact to invest in both locations but to prevent any other food retail development from taking place in order to protect their own interests in an out of centre site. x Asda’s planning submission contradicts their objections raised to the Tesco development. x Asda’s assertion that a RIA is not required due to the existing footprint on site is incorrect, the impact needs to be tested for a number of reasons. x The new store will be operated by Asda, one of the big 4 retailers, not a discounter and will therefore trade very differently to the existing set up. x The new store will be significantly larger than the existing (396% larger). x It is larger than the proposed Tesco, and has a larger non food offer. x The retail catchment area is based on a 5 minute drive time, in the objection to Tesco they complain that Middleton is excluded incorrectly from this catchment area, however in the current submission they argue that Middleton is on the edge of the catchment area and therefore should be excluded. x In their objection to Tesco they state that it is not appropriate for Beeston to operate as an established major food shopping destination, however in the application submission they state that the proposal provides an enhanced food offer that will effectively compete with the larger food store destinations including Hunslet and White Rose. x The Tesco objection claims that a new Tesco will result in significant adverse impacts to other centres such as Middleton and would prejudice local shopping needs, however the current submission provides no economic assessment of the proposed scheme.
7.0 CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES:
Statutory: Environment Agency 7.1 The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment dated September 2011 are implemented and secured by was of a condition.
Non-statutory: Policy (Colliers) 7.2 The household surveys on which the applicant has based their analyses do not provide adequate and appropriate basis for the assessment. The Asda analysis is derived from the Colliers International Centres Study report. This survey was undertaken to assist policy formulation and was not at the level of detail to consider appropriately issues of impact relating to individual store proposals. This has been stressed repeatedly but additional survey work by Asda has not been forthcoming. If Page 113 additional survey and analysis work had been carried out it may have supported the assertions that Asda makes however as it stands the evidence for both retail impact and cumulative impact contains uncertainties.
7.3 One of the main issues of concern with regard to impact is that on Dewsbury Road town centre. Whilst this is currently limited in its range and choice it is the decision of the City Council not to depart from the identification of Dewsbury Road as a town centre. The proposed store would have an impact on this area as a town centre going forward and would and it is considered that a main retailer foodstore would not be interested in locating in or on the edge of Dewsbury Road town centre is the Asda proposal goes ahead.
7.4 Further impacts arise on local centres (Beeston) and local convenience store provision. Whilst it is recognised that there will be a diversion away from Beeston centre the evidence used to assess this impact is inadequate and therefore the real trading impact may be much higher. It is considered that significant impact on the local Co-Op store would be a material consideration. Asda will provide much the same local function for the immediate catchment area and will therefore divert trade from the Co-Op; this has not been assessed properly by the applicant.
7.5 The Council are also promoting Holbeck at the local centre scale to support a more sustainable community here and the same impacts on commercial and investor confidence arise as with Dewsbury Road.
Local Plans 7.6 The drive time for the catchment areas should be 10 minutes not 5, this is the measure used in the Core Strategy. There are concerns about the impact on other centres such as Dewsbury Road and Holbeck which are identified within the draft Core Strategy. Other sequentially preferable sites should be considered further before discounting.
7.7 Having reviewed the applicants Employment Land Assessment their conclusions would concur with the Councils in that there is currently a plentiful supply of vacant property for employment uses and therefore it would be unreasonable to object in terms of policy E7.
Highways 7.8 The application taken on its own merits is acceptable in highways terms, however if both sites come forward for approval there will be a need to undertake cumulative impact assessments.
7.9 The amount of parking provided is adequate.
7.10 S278 agreement will cover highway works including provision of pedestrian islands on Old Lane and a right turn lane.
7.11 Off site highway works will include improvements to the Old Lane roundabout which will in particular benefit cyclists.
7.12 50k funding towards TRO’s is offered.
Travelwise 7.13 The submitted Travel Plan is acceptable subject to conditions for details such as staff shower facilities, cycle parking etc. A review fee of £2,500 would be required
Page 114 along with £1,500 for dropped kerbs as well as upgrades to bus stops requested by Metro.
METRO 7.14 Live information displays should be provided at bus stop number 10074 (outside the site) at cost of £10,000. Good pedestrian access to and from the site should be provided.
Land Contamination 7.15 No objections subject to conditions.
Access Officer 7.16 A claimed footpath abuts the site (southern boundary) but will not be encroached upon in any way. No objections.
Environmental Health (including noise officer) 7.17 No objections subject to conditions to include Construction Management Plan, noise assessment, noise mitigation and plant locations.
Flood Risk Management 7.18 No objections subject to condition for drainage details and use of permeable surfacing.
Climate Change Officer, Sustainable Development Unit 7.19 Whilst the information submitted suggests a welcome commitment to sustainability there is a lack of detailing within the submission. A condition for a revised Sustainability Statement should be applied to ensure achievement of a minimum “Very Good” BREEAM rating, along with an energy demand report.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Development Plan 8.2 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) and the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). The RSS was issued in May 2008 and includes a broad development strategy for the region, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development.
8.3 Relevant RSS policies are considered to be; E2 States that town centres should be the focus for offices, retail, leisure and entertainment.
8.4 The site is not covered by a particular designation within the Unitary Development Plan, the following UDP policies are relevant to the consideration of the application:
SP6 – Distribution of land for employment uses SP7 - Priority to be given to enhancement of the City Centre and town centres GP5 – General planning considerations; GP11 – Sustainable Design Principles E7 – Loss of Employment Land to other uses N12 – Urban design principles; N13 – Design of new buildings; Page 115 N24 – Development abutting green belt, green corridors or other open land N25 – Boundaries of sites to be designed in a positive manner T2 – New development and highway safety; T5 – Access for pedestrians and cyclists; T6 – Provision for disabled people; S5 - Criteria for out-of-centre major retail development (above 2,500 sq.m gross) BD5 – New buildings, design and amenity;
8.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions SPD. Travel Plans SPD Sustainable Design & Construction SPD “Building for Tomorrow Today” Street Design Guide.
8.6 Core Strategy Publication Draft 2012
This document was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of representations the Council intends to submit the draft for examination. The CS sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. Relevant policies are;
Spatial Vision Objectives include the promotion of town and local centres as the heart of communities, and promotion of the regeneration of areas taking into account the needs and aspirations of local communities.
The CS seeks to achieve growth within centres with a “centre first” approach, protecting the vitality and viability of centres. Beneath the city centre, town and local centres perform and important role in providing for weekly and day to day shopping requirements, employment, leisure etc. in easily accessible locations to minimise the need to travel by providing “linked trips”; and by performing a role in place making.
Spatial Policy 2 sets out the hierarchy of town centres, whilst Spatial Policy 8 identifies the city centre and town and local centres as the core locations for new retail and office development.
Policy P1 – Identifies Dewsbury Road and Hunslet as town centres, Beeston and Middleton Park Circus as higher order local centres, and Beeston Hill, Holbeck and Tommy Wass as lower order local centres (Holbeck and Tommy Wass are newly identified centres).
Policy P2 – Acceptable uses within and on the edge of town centres are shops, supermarkets and superstores.
Policy P3 – For higher order local centres small supermarkets of up to 1,858 m 2 would be acceptable in principle. In lower order local centres small food stores compatible with the size of the centre would be acceptable.
Policy P4 – Proposals for stand alone small scale food stores of up to 372m 2 gross within residential areas will be acceptable where there is no local centre or shopping parade within a 500m radius.
Policy P5 – New food stores will be directed towards town and local centres. Sites on the edge of town and local centres will be considered where there are no Page 116 available, viable or suitable sites within a centre. Some town centres such as Dewsbury Road could perform more successfully as major locations for weekly shopping needs if they included a major food store. Appropriate provision will be encouraged and supported where sites can be identified. A site for convenience retailing will be sought in Holbeck to meet an existing deficiency and complement wider regeneration issues.
Policy P8 – Proposals for out of centre A1 uses within residential areas of 1,500m 2 plus will require both sequential assessment and retail impact assessment with a drive time catchment area of 10 minutes.
8.7 National Planning Policy and Guidance From 27 March 2012 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) took the place of the PPS’s and PPG’s and is now a material consideration when making planning decisions. The NPPF sets out the range of the Government’s planning policies and sets out the requirements for the planning system but only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. In particular there is an emphasis on decision making at a local level where communities and their accountable Council’s can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of communities through up to date development plans to achieve the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainable development. These dimensions give rise to the need for planning system to perform a number of roles:
- The economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.
- The social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being;
- The environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
Paragraph 14 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which means:
“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this (NPPF) framework taken as a whole; or
- specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.”
Section 2 sets out the approach towards ensuring the vitality of town centres. It stipulates that Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning Page 117 applications for town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
Paragraph 26 requires that “ when assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPA’s should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m). This should include assessment of:
x The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and x The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local customer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area….”
At paragraph 27 the NPPF advises that:
“Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.”
The NPPF acknowledges that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It advises that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. At paragraph 64 is states:
Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
Other Relevant Guidance 8.8 Ministerial Statement – Planning for Growth, March 2011.
8.9 Planning for Town Centres – Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach, CLG 2009.
8.10 PPS4 Impact Assessment, CLG, 2009.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES
1. Loss of employment Land 2. Retail policy 3. Highway matters 4. Design and Layout of proposed store 5. Landscaping 6. Relationship to surrounding residential properties 7. Planning Obligations
10.0 APPRAISAL
1. Loss of employment land/ alternative uses for the site Page 118 10.1 Policy E7 relates to the consideration of the use of land currently or last in use as employment land, and advises that uses outside of the B Use Classes will not be permitted unless; the site is not reserved for specific types of employment use/ sufficient alternative employment sites exist both district wide and within the locality/ the proposal would not result in environmental, amenity or traffic problems.
10.2 The site is 1.27 ha and considered to be a moderately-sized site in terms of employment land within the immediate locality of South Leeds. The site, together with neighbouring employment and commercial premises comprise an “island” of industrial, warehouse and commercial uses within a built-up area predominantly residential area.
10.3 The applicant has submitted a report on employment land issues which states that the eastern portion of the site is occupied by the former Netto (now trading as Asda). The northern edge is occupied by four industrial units, two of which were vacant. These units provide in the region of 1,720 m 2 of gross employment floorspace. Land to the west was previously in employment use; however buildings have been demolished (between 2006 and 2009).
10.4 Although there are residential properties opposite the site on Old Lane, which acts as a local distributor road, there is little evidence that the site is inherently unsuitable for employment or commercial use. However, given that the site is unallocated and in light of the current market situation it is considered unlikely that speculative employment use would come forward on the site.
10.5 Whilst the applicants Employment Land Assessment is comprehensive it fails to give a “years of supply” position. Using therefore the most recent ELA carried out on behalf of the Tesco site in 2010 it is assessed that there is between 22 and 26 years of employment land availability within the locality. The plan horizon for the Core Strategy is 2028 and therefore 22 years of supply does not indicate that an E7 objection would be reasonable.
10.6 From the above, it is clear that the loss of this site to an alternative commercial use would not pose any harm to the Council’s interests in providing opportunities for local employment uses and there is no objection raised under Policy E7 of the UDP Review. Furthermore, the proposed development would also generate employment, in the region of 100 full time equivalents.
2. Retail policy
10.7 The underlying theme from the NPPF is the presumption of favour of sustainable development. Section 2 is specifically entitled ‘Ensuring vitality of town centres’ and sets out the approach towards ensuring the vitality of town centres. It stipulates that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Proposals for retail development should specifically include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local customer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area. The NPPF advises that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
Page 119 10.8 In terms of local policy within the development plan, the application should be assessed against Policy S5 of the UDP Review 2006 which advises that major retail developments (above 2, 500 m 2 gross as set out at para 9.2.7) outside defined S1 and S2 centre’s will not normally be permitted unless;
i. the type of development cannot satisfactorily be accommodated within or adjacent to an existing S1 or S2 centre; ii. it can be demonstrated that it will not undermine the vitality and viability of the city centre or any S2 or local centre or prejudice the local provision of essential daily needs shopping. The policy goes on to advise that it will normally be necessary for the applicant to carry out a formal study of impact on nearby centre’s and an assessment of changes in travel patterns. iii. It addresses qualitative and/ or quantitative deficiencies in shopping facilities iv. It is readily accessibly to those without private transport v. It does not entail the use of land designated for housing, key employment sites or land located in the green belt or open countryside.
10.9 Policy S5 is considered to be consistent with national guidance set out within the NPPF, with particular reference to the sequential test and impact assessment.
10.10 The site at Old Lane is located 470m from the boundary of the nearest identified centre at Beeston and 380m from the emerging centre at Tommy Wass (as identified in the Draft Core Strategy). According to the NPPF definition the site is classified as out of centre and must accord with the sequential assessment criteria set out at paragraph 24 of the NPPF. Additionally, because the gross area proposed is more than 2,500m 2it should also be assessed against the impact criteria set out at paragraph 26 of the NPPF. A Retail Assessment has been submitted with the application (RA).
10.11 Relevant case law on retail policy, specifically on the matter of sequential sites, comes from a Supreme Court judgement in a matter between Tesco Stores Ltd and Dundee City Council (21/03/12). Whilst the crux of Tesco’s case was the misinterpretation of policy applied by Dundee CC in approving an Asda superstore the judgement also raised important matters on sequential assessment.
10.12 The judgement provides authority for the proposition that the suitability of a site in sequential terms is being directed to the developers’ proposals, not some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the planning authority. However the case also underlines the principle that the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities. The applicants are expected to have prepared proposals in accordance with the recommended approach, by, for example having had regard to the circumstances of the particular town centre, to have given consideration to the scope for accommodating the development in a different form, and to have thoroughly assessed sequentially preferable locations.
Sequential Assessment
10.13 As the site occupies an out-of-centre location it is necessary for the applicant to carry out a sequential assessment of possible alternative sites in accordance with policy requirements. The applicants’ retail statement assesses alternative sites within the “natural catchment area” and identifies the only sequentially preferable site as being the former Kwik Save site on Dewsbury Road. They consider it to be Page 120 unreasonable and inappropriate for the existing Asda store to relocate to the Kwik Save which offers a smaller footprint than that being proposed for Old Lane. This would not offer the opportunity for improvements to the existing Old Lane store to be carried out or to improve the role that the store plays. The Kwik Save site is now undergoing alteration and subdivision into two smaller units, one of which is proposed to be occupied by Iceland.
10.14 Following further discussions the applicants reviewed other sites which the Council considered to be sequentially preferable, these included the Police Station site on Dewsbury Road, Crescent Works on Dewsbury Road, and an area of demolished housing in Holbeck (the Runswicks).
10.15 All of the sites are dismissed by the applicant with the following conclusions drawn:
x Crescent Works – It is understood that this site is currently unavailable for development and provides a number of well established employment premises that are currently being marketed. There are no adopted or emerging local planning policies to support the principle of redevelopment this site for retail use. There is no evidence to suggest that retail development in this location would be a suitable alternative use or that the site can be viably developed for retail use.
x Dewsbury Road Police Station Site – The site has an area of just 0.8Ha and therefore not suitable to accommodate a food store of the format required and proposed by Asda at Old Lane. The site would not be suitable to meet the identified need for a food store to improve local shopping facilities in Beeston; there is no evidence that this site provides a potential alternative sequentially preferable site.
x Runswicks, Holbeck – This site comprises a number of former rows of back to back dwellings and occupies an out of centre location some 1.2km from the nearest centre. ( NB it should be noted that the site is actually 170m from Holbeck local centre ). The site is earmarked for regeneration as part of the PFI schemes and the site is understood to be proposed for residential use. There is no evidence to suggest that the development is available or viable for redevelopment for retail use. There would also be potential impacts on nearby residential uses and the Local Nature Area to the east of the site. The site is therefore less sequentially preferable to that of Old Lane. NB the site is now acknowledged to be earmarked for housing redevelopment, however there are other, smaller sites that may come forward within Holbeck in the next few years.
10.16 The conclusion is therefore reached by the applicants that there are no suitable, available or viable alternative locations within or on the edge of town or local centres within the PCA or HAS. The proposal therefore satisfies the sequential test.
10.17 The Council acknowledges that the sites identified above are not going to allow the delivery of the size of store proposed however it is not considered that the evidence on which the assertions are based is complete and full. For example it is not accepted that the applicants have demonstrated flexibility in the scale and layout of store propositions when considering the sites, both practice guidance and the Dundee judgement require that both applicants and LPA’s are flexible. It is not considered in this case that the applicants have adequately demonstrated flexibility in their business model, or put forward enough justification to fully discount other sequentially preferable sites, particularly in the Dewsbury Road area given the primacy of this area in the retail hierarchy. For example there are large areas of industrial development
Page 121 very close to the Dewsbury Road town centre but there is no assessment of whether any of these areas are available, viable or suitable.
10.18 Dewsbury Road is acknowledged to be a town centre that is poorly performing in terms of its provision and that it lacks the large anchor store that could stimulate further commercial and retail provision. Both the UDPR and the draft Core Strategy identify it as a town centre that requires promotion and redevelopment and it is seen as being beneficial to encourage regeneration here. It is sustainably located with a main public transport route running through it, and located within walking distance of a large residential district which has large car ownership. It is considered that should Asda open a store of the size being proposed here, this will detrimentally impact on the likelihood of any food store provider looking to open up in or around Dewsbury Road. The potential future impact therefore could be negative and for this reason it is considered that the sequential site search should have been more thorough and considered.
Retail capacity
10.19 The applicant has looked at the issue of retail capacity as this can be relevant to the consideration of impact.
10.20 The assessment recognises the existing situation with a store that has permission to increase its gross floorspace to 777m 2. Using the Leeds City Centre, Town and Local Centres study produced by Colliers International (for the Council) the applicants draw the conclusions that Netto has a limited role as a main food shopping destination but that this will be enhanced by the conversion to Asda branding, the Inner South zone of which the site is a part of is dominated by the Morrisons store at Hunslet (66% of expenditure) and that there is further requirement for main food shopping provision within the zone.
10.21 Asda considers that none of the surrounding centres within a 5 minute drive time catchment area (Beeston, Beeston Hill, Dewsbury Road, Tommy Wass) fulfil the role of a main food shopping destination and cater only for specialist food provision, or top-up provision. The enlargement of the former Netto store will improve the offer made by the store and provide the opportunity for consumers to carry out a weekly food shop within the catchment area, this will effectively claw back trade that currently goes outside of the catchment.
10.22 Asda also state that they are committed to bringing forward the proposals for a new store in the Middleton District Centre and that this proposal would not undermine that scheme. They state that as the Old Lane scheme represents an uplift in existing retail floorspace then it will not fundamentally alter the wider retail hierarchy. The enhanced offer will compete with larger food store destinations outside the catchment such as Morrisons, Hunslet and Sainsbury, White Rose. Therefore there is a requirement to provide greater consumer choice within the area which the new proposal will deliver.
10.23 It is considered by the Council that no allowance has been made for existing centres to increase or decrease market shares within this zone. In particular Dewsbury Road and emerging centres will be affected by the proposed store and future development/ enhancement/ maintenance will depend on market share increasing.
10.24 Furthermore, since the catchment area is drawn up from an out of centre location, it is considered that shopping patterns should be looked at in more detail and appropriate expenditure within the catchment that is spent within existing centres Page 122 should be looked at. For instance, it is not inappropriate for some expenditure to go to Hunslet town centre as part of the catchment area is closer to Hunslet town centre than the proposed store location. Indeed, there must be some overlapping of catchment areas. It is not considered justified that an out-of-centre store should claw back trade from town centre stores just outside its primary catchment area (PCA) as it is considered that this expenditure should be allocated to these centres.
10.25 It is considered that Morrisons at Hunslet relies on trade from the PCA accounting for nearly 40% of all expenditure in the PCA and the impact to this store needs to be robustly assessed. Careful consideration also needs to be given to the city wide strategy for new retail provision and strengthening the vitality and viability of existing and emerging centres. Furthermore, there are planned strategies that have not yet been delivered which could again reduce expenditure leakage.
Impact 10.26 The NPPF advises that evidence regarding the impact of the proposal should be considered. The applicant’s RA has considered the impact of the proposal on existing centres as well as the cumulative impact of the proposed store and recent permissions.
10.27 Table 3.2 of the applicant’s addendum RA shows the trade diversion effect of the proposed store on identified town and local centres in terms of convenience goods as follows; x 3.97% trade diversion from Beeston Local Centre x 1.26% Dewsbury Road; x 11% for Hunslet
10.28 The RA concludes that impacts are minimal and will not threaten vitality and viability of the centres.
Impact on existing centres Hunslet 10.29 The applicants consider Hunslet to be outside of their catchment area, however they have assessed that there will be a 11% drop in trade and turnover on Hunslet due to trade diversion from the Morrisons store, however analysis shows that in 2010 the store was trading at 149% of its benchmark level, which reduces the impact of the Beeston Asda to 7%. The existing health and strength of the Hunslet Morrisons means that even with this level of impact Morrisons will still trade at a predicted 158% of benchmark in 2016 which cannot be viewed as harmful.
10.30 The cumulative impact of the Asda Beeston alongside Asda Middleton and Aldi Middleton on Hunslet Morrisons would indicated that the store will still continue to trade at 113% of benchmark by 2016 so this cumulative impact is also not viewed as harmful.
Beeston local centre 10.31 It is estimated that the impact on Beeston local centre (which houses the Co-op) will be in the region of 4%, this is considered to be a minimal amount and will not pose any threat to the vitality and viability of these centres.
Dewsbury Road S2 centre 10.32 The impact on Dewsbury Road is estimated to be 1% which again as above is not considered to be significant. The applicant further considers that there are no known investments in this area which would be affected by the Asda proposal.
Page 123 Holbeck emerging local centre 10.33 No assessment of the impact on Holbeck has been undertaken by the applicant.
Other centres 10.34 The applicant considers that the impact on Beeston Hill centre will be negligible, the occupiers of this area are generally local in nature and there are few vacant units indicating that the centre is healthy. There are no comparable stores to the proposed Asda that will be competed with. The same conclusions were drawn about the Tommy Wass emerging local centre.
10.35 With regard to the proposed Asda at Middleton which has permission the applicant states that the beeston store will not undermine their commitment here. The Beeston store represents an uplift in existing retail floorspace and is able to be accommodated without fundamentally changing the wider retail hierarchy. Furthermore the Middleton centre falls outside of the Beeston primary catchment area.
Leeds City , Town and Local centres study 10.36 Following the objections to the proposal received on behalf of Morrisons in relation to their Hunslet store and on behalf of the Co-operative Group in relation to their store at Beeston local centre, it was considered that it would be useful in the assessment of the Tesco Old Lane application to take into account the results of the quantitative need analysis of the Leeds City, Town and Local Centre Study (a city- wide retail assessment being prepared by Colliers International for the City Council). It was initially expected that this report would have been available in early 2011 however this was delayed until July 2011. The Study itself will be used to contribute towards the evidence base of the Local Development Framework including the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Document. The report itself has limited status in planning terms, but is capable of being a material planning consideration. The study was commissioned to contribute to the LDF and therefore its findings are of relevance.
10.37 The Town Centre Study includes the results of a household survey undertaken in Summer 2010 to help to establish a baseline position on broad expenditure patterns across retail locations and stores in Leeds district. The household survey results have now been made fully available however and table 3 within Appendix 8d of the Study does include a breakdown of the household survey results in respect of convenience shopping destinations in each of the survey zones. The Town Centre Study separately considered expenditure on convenience and comparison goods to establish the quantitative need for each of the sectors. The study split Leeds district into 10 zones based on the Council’s area committee structure. The application site and the vast majority of the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) lies within the Inner South Zone of the study (which covers the Council wards of City & Hunslet, Middleton Park and Beeston & Holbeck). The study identifies quantitative need in each of the sub area over three time periods: 2010 to 2016, 2021 and 2026. For consideration of a planning application only the first of the time periods is relevant as the practice guidance advises that assessments of impacts should focus in particular on the first 5 years after the implementation of a proposal, in this case approximately 2017.
10.38 The retail floorspace needs assessment for convenience goods (scenario 1: low population projection) from the draft Town Centres Study shows that there is a negative retail floorspace need of 12,091m 2 net in the Inner South area for the period to 2016. This would mean that there is over capacity of convenience Page 124 floorspace in the Zone which would not support the case for the new additional floorspace in the area, such as that proposed in this application, outside existing centres.
3.Highway matters
10.39 The site has been reviewed in terms of the impact it will have on highway capacity along Old Lane and in the local area. It is considered that on its own the proposed store would not create unacceptable harm to highway safety subject to some highway works being undertaken which would include upgrades to the Old Lane roundabout and traffic regulation orders to prevent parking in local streets.
10.40 The access into the site is to be upgraded with relevant highway works including pedestrian islands on Old Lane and right hand turn lanes to ease traffic flows.
10.41 The site is readily accessible with a bus stop immediately outside and being within walking distance of a sizeable residential population. A Travel Plan has been accepted which would aim to reduce car borne travel to the site, and promote alternative forms of transportation.
10.42 Overall then the proposal is considered to comply with highway policies and guidance.
4. Design and Layout of proposed store
10.43 The proposal is made in outline so all layout, scale and appearance matters are reserved. However the indicative proposal shows a store located in the south west corner, which is further back than the existing store. Parking will be to the front of this. This arrangement allows some additional set back and landscaping to be achieved for residents across Old Lane. The set back does bring the store closer to residents to the west and south, however there were previously industrial units on this site which would have resulted in more detriment to residential amenity than this current proposal.
10.44 The overall appearance will be quite typical of such stores, but will represent a big improvement on the existing store. Overall subject to consideration of detailed matters then no objection to the design and layout is raised in principle.
5. Landscaping
10.45 Again landscaping is a reserved matter however the indicative plan shows retention of the landscaping buffer to the eastern and southern boundaries and there will be opportunities to enhance this further. Subject to detailed consideration there are no objections to the proposal in landscaping terms.
6. Relationship to surrounding residential properties
10.46 As stated above the new store would be further away from Old Lane properties, but closer to properties on the south and west. However given the ability to control to a much greater extent issues of noise and odours etc. then it is not considered that the proposal would result in loss of residential amenity, especially given the allowed industrial uses on the site. Page 125 11.0 CONCLUSION
11.1 The NPPF stresses that applications must be considered against all relevant policies as only then can the issues of sustainable development properly be assessed. The issues around this proposal are complex and numerous and should be considered in conjunction with the neighbouring retail proposal. The following conclusions can be drawn. 11.2 The site is located in a sustainable location, it is close to public transport facilities that link to Beeston local centre, Tommy Wass local centre, and to the City Centre and White Rose, as well as other areas that can be reached via the motorway network. The site does not however have a train line. The site is also located within an area of dense residential population, where car ownership is acknowledged to be low and where issues of unemployment etc. are slightly higher than average. It is noted that the two existing/proposed local centres are within walking distances of the sites location and so could serve the local residents with daily needs, however it is also accepted that the constraints of these local centres would not allow for a larger scale food store. Many local residents are in support of the proposals citing the benefits of having a larger scale food store in the vicinity. 11.3 The proposed store would result in new jobs, both in construction and built phases and these could be secured, as much as possible, for the local area through a s106 agreement as has been done elsewhere. The provision of jobs would undoubtedly have wider benefits for the local area, increasing employment rates, helping to tackle deprivation and providing additional income that could be spent in the local area. However the proposal could also result in the decline of existing stores at Beeston local centre and at Tommy Wass, as well as small scale local convenience stores. It is noted that the Post Office has raised concerns that if services are duplicated it will potentially reduce their business. There are therefore negative economic impacts as well as positive ones. 11.4 The redevelopment of the site will have large benefits for the street scene of the area given the very poor visual amenity that currently exists. There could be potential uplift in the overall appearance of the area that could again stimulate economic growth and regeneration. 11.5 Trees around the site are to be saved and preserved and landscaping overall enhanced which will have obvious biodiversity benefits. 11.6 The proposal if allowed is considered to impact negatively on the attractiveness of Dewsbury Road town centre to potential food store operators in this area. There is a need for such development in this town centre in order for this centre to provide the services and facilities that should be provided at that level of the hierarchy. A new food store operator in or close to that centre could stimulate jobs, income and visual enhancements that could kick start regeneration of the wider area. Without this it is likely that Dewsbury Road will continue in its downward spiral with potential for further economic loss. 11.7 In weighing up the issues it is accepted that there would be potential economic benefits and that there is support from local communities, however it is still the case that this is a town centre use being proposed in an out of centre location and it is likely to detrimentally impact on the ability of Dewsbury Road, and potentially also Holbeck, to provide retail and economic vitality for their respective areas. This would effectively go against policy in both the UDPR and the draft Core Strategy which seeks to promote Dewsbury Road as a town centre and to bring about opportunities for growth to take place here. Given this conflict with policy and the Page 126 potential disbenefits, it is not considered that the proposal can be considered to represent sustainable development and is therefore recommended for refusal.
Background Papers: Planning application file Certificate of Ownership: signed by applicant
Page 127 11/04306/OT
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567Page 128 SCALE : 1/1500 ° Agenda Item 13
Originator: Amanda Stone
Tel: 247 8000
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL (SOUTH & WEST)
Date: 10 TH November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/04061/FU: APPLICATION FOR ALL WEATHER GRASS FOOTBALL PITCH INCLUDING CHANGING FACILITIES, EIGHT LIGHTING COLUMNS AND FENCING AT COCKBURN HIGH SCHOOL, GIPSY LANE, BEESTON.
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Governing body of Cockburn 25 September 2012 20 November 2012 High School
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Beeston Holbeck Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION DEFER AND DELEGATE to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the specified conditions. 1. Time Limit on Permission. 2. Plans to be approved. 3. Details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels to be agreed. 4. Submission of scheme detailing surface water drainage works. 5. Sample walling and roofing materials to be provided. 6. Details of fencing to be provided. 7. Lighting restrictions. 8. Restriction of use. 9. Construction Management Plan. 10.Submission of surfacing materials. 11. Reporting of unexpected contamination. 12.Submission of Phase I Desk Study. 13. Remediation Statement. 14. Verification Reports.
Page 129 Reasons for Approval: This application has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the RSS and UDPR 2006, policy guidance within the NPPF and Policy “E5” of “Sport England” playing fields policy.
The application aims to provide the school with a new artificial grass pitch together with perimeter fencing and changing facilities on land currently designated for outdoor sports.
The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies as set out in the development plan and constitutes a sustainable form of development.
1.0 INTRODUCTION: 1.1 This application is brought to Plans Panel (West and South) at the request of Councillor Congreve due to the amount of local interest generated.
1.2 This application is a resubmission of a previous scheme ref: 12/02987/FU: Cockburn High School - All weather football pitch with eight lighting columns, fencing and changing facilities. This application was withdrawn at the applicants request in order to address local residents objections and concerns raised by officers with regard to the potential impact on residential amenity from light pollution and noise nuisance as well the appearance of the facility when viewed from residential properties/sites, given its close proximity to residential properties bordering the north side of the school playing fields .
1.3 Amendments to the previous scheme are as follows:
x The pitch has been rotated 90 degrees and relocated to the other side of the school playing fields and now retains a distance of 60m to the northern boundary; x Further to this the pitch surface is now proposed to have a multi purpose surface which can accommodate football (full size or 3 five a side pitches) as well as sports such as Hockey, Handball, volley ball, Winter Athletics, Tennis and Cricket and as such offers a greater degree of versatility.
PROPOSAL: 2.1 The application is for a (full size) artificial grass playing pitch including changing facilities, eight lighting columns and fencing.
2.2 The pitch itself is proposed to be located on a piece of land which currently serves as a grass football pitch, hard surfaced netball court and long jump, near to the southern boundary of the site and to the east side of the school building.
2.3 A perimeter mesh type fence is proposed to border the pitch. This would be a minimum of 3.0m in height, increasing to a height of 5.0m directly behind each goal end. The fence is proposed to be powder coated green.
2.4 Eight 15m high slim line profile lightening columns are proposed to the north and south side of the pitch, four on each side.
2.5 A temporary modular building is also proposed on a piece of land close to the main school building alongside other temporary modular structures. The building is to be used for changing facilities as well as providing toilets, showers, kitchen and a committee room. The building would afford 184 m 2 of floor space and would have a panneled sheet finished appearance to its elevations (off white in colour) with steel profile (grey) roof over. Page 130 2.6 Proposed hours of operation are 8:30 – 17:00 for curriculum use and after school club and 17:00 – 21:00 for football matches and community use purposes Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 21:00 Saturday and Sunday.
2.7 The management of the day to day operational administration and changing facilities will be the responsibility of the school.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 This application refers to Cockburn High School in Middleton. The school building fronts onto to Gypsy Lane and consists of a large two storey rendered structure which serves as the main school building. To the east side (rear) of the school building is a poly tunnel, modular buildings with hard surface play courts and outdoor seating area. The remainder of the site to the east consists of sports fields. The topography of the land consists of two levels resulting in the playing pitch located to the east of the site being at a lower level than the west side of the playing fields.
3.2 Access to the site is gained off Gypsy Lane and serves a large car park which is located at the front of the building which comprises of 50 car spaces, 8 disabled spaces, 70 cycle spaces and 3 bus spaces.
3.3 The site is located to the north of South Leeds Golf Course, separated by woodland which connects to Middleton Woods Local Nature Reserve which borders the east side of the playing fields. To both the east, south and west of the site there is green space (Cricket pitch, Middleton Woods and Middleton Golf Course), to the north is a mix of housing. The school site is enclosed by a 2.4m high paladin fence. The site forms part of the Green Corridor and the new pitch is to be located on land designated as protected playing fields.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 12/02987/FU: Cockburn High School - All weather football pitch with eight lighting columns, fencing and changing facilities – Withdrawn:17-Sept-2012
12/01445/FU: Cockburn High School - Installation of canopy over courtyard – Approved: 18/06/2012
09/03813/FU: Cockburn High School - Detached prefabricated classroom block to school - Approved: 27-JAN-10
07/01278/LA: Cockburn High School - 9 temporary classroom units to school - Approved: 08-MAY-07
06/07128/LA: Cockburn High School - Reserved matters application for part demolition & erection of part 1 storey, part 2 storey and part 3 storey extensions to school with car parking & landscaping - Approved: 27-FEB-07
21/213/05/OT: Cockburn High School Gipsy Lane Leeds - Outline application to erect extension to school - Approved: 05-OCT-05
21/133/02/FU: Cockburn High School Gipsy Lane Leeds 11 - Single storey rear extension to school – Approved: 06-AUG-02 Page 131 21/194/99/FU: Cockburn High School Gipsy Lane Leeds 11 - Two storey extension to side of school - Approved: 05-OCT-99
21/129/99/FU: Cockburn High School Gipsy Lane Leeds 11 - Single storey extension to school: Approved: 07-JUL-99
21/299/99/FU: Cockburn High School Gipsy Lane Leeds 11 - Two storey extension to school - Approved: 25-JAN-00
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS: 5.1 The application is a resubmission of a previously withdrawn scheme ref: 12/02987/FU. This application was withdrawn at the applicants request in order to look to minimize the impact of the development on residential sites from light pollution and potential noise nuisance associated with the use.
5.2 The main revision is that the development has now moved to the opposite side of the site and rotated 90 degrees so that the goal ends are now to the east and west apposed to north and south, running parallel to the main gardens of adjacent residential properties. The pitch sits adjacent to a wooded area which bounds Middleton Golf Course and separates itself from the residential sites by over 60m and 80m to the residential properties.
6.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Statutory Consultations: Coal Authority – Awaiting revised consultation response to information submitted by applicant in response to the Coal Authorities initial comments.
Sport England – Initial concerns raised by Sport England have been addressed through the submission of additional information.
Non Statutory Consultations: 6.2 Contaminated Land – No objections subject to conditions
Highways – No objections subject to a condition restricting the use of the pitch to the public before the hours of 5pm Monday to Friday.
Mains Drainage – No objections subject to a condition for details of drainage scheme
West Yorkshire Police – No objections raised however officers advised that the facility should be managed in order to mitigate potential crime to the school or users of the facility and their vehicles.
Sustainable Development Unit – has raised concerns in relation to possible light pollution and the threat posed to neighbouring wildlife habitats (bats). Applicant currently looking at ways to mitigate the potential harm.
Public Rights of Way – No objections raised.
Page 132 Minerals – Awaiting comments
Neighbourhoods and Housing – no objections raised to the revised location of the pitch.
Street Lighting – No objections raised (awaiting written confirmation)
7.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
7.1 The application was advertised by site notice on 27 September 2012 and neighbour notifications letters posted 27 September 2012 . 16 letters of objection and 2 letters of general comment have been received to the current scheme and 49 letters objections and 2 signed petition to the previous scheme. Objections are made on the following grounds.
Public Response: x There will be increased traffic generation and congestion x There is a danger of increase on street parking x Access will be difficult whilst construction is under way x Noise generated during development x Noise associated to players, spectators and rattling of fence x Light pollution x Loss of view x Impact on visual amenity x The proposal will be harmful to wildlife. x Effect on house re-sale value x Attract youths to the area due to community use x The facility is not needed x Disruption caused by construction vehicles x Litter x Quality of life x Infringement on basic human rights
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) and the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). The RSS was issued in May 2008 and includes a broad development strategy for the region, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development. However, the RSS is a strategic planning document, used to inform more detailed policies at a local level. Accordingly, it is not considered that there are any particular policies which are relevant to the assessment of this proposal. 8.2 The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time .
8.3 The following policies from the UDP are relevant: Page 133 x Policy GP5 seeks to ensure that development proposals resolve detailed planning considerations, including amenity.
x Policy BD5 seeks to ensure that all new buildings should be designed with consideration to both their own amenity and that of their surroundings.
x Policy N6 states at paragraph (i) that development of playing pitches will not be permitted unless: “There is a demonstrable net gain to overall pitch quality and provision by part redevelopment of a site or suitable relocation within the same locality of the city, consistent with the sites functions”
x Policy N8 – Urban Green Corridor x Policy T2 ensures that development proposals should not create new, or exacerbate existing, highway problems.
National Policy/Guidance: x National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
Other relevant guidance x Sport England Playing Fields Policy E5 which aims to ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality pitches to satisfy the current and estimated future demand for pitch sports within the area. The policy seeks to protect all parts of the playing from development and not just those which, for the time being, are laid out as pitches.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
1. The principle of development. 2. Design and the character. 3. Highways 4. Residential amenity. 5. Representations 6. Conclusion
10.0 APPRAISAL:
1. The principle of development.
Need for the facility 10.1 The applicant states that the proposal is not currently linked into a wider Sports Development Network. The need for this facility is driven primarily by the school curriculum with approximately 80% intended usage by curriculum based activities. Currently physical education facilities are at full stretch and subsequently restricting growth in this subject. The current fields are susceptible to flooding and in winter the normal programme of activities is restricted to class room based none practical activities which effects the quality of learning the students receive. Indoor facilities are also restricted at certain times of the year as public examinations take precedent. The all weather surface would enhance the current curriculum as well as extra curriculum based activities by providing additional sporting opportunity and experiences for
Page 134 children and as such would also improve examination result opportunities for the students.
In addition, there are local community relationships which the school fully intends to strengthen by the realisation of this proposal. These are discussed at paragraph titled Accessibility & Community Use.
Technically suitable The artificial pitch will replace an existing hard surface netball pitch and long jump, however the long jump is to be re-instated near to the eastern end of the site and the netball use is be accommodated on an existing hard surfaced area. The proposed artificial grass pitch is now proposed to have a multi purpose surface which can accommodate football (full size or 3 five a side pitches) as well as sports such as Hockey, Handball, volley ball, winter athletics, tennis and cricket and as such offers a greater degree of versatility opposed to a football use only. In addition the proposed facilities would also enhance the schools extra curriculum activities especially during the winter months which currently have to cease between October and March as a result of darkness.
Accessibility and Community Use The school has some existing community use established by a condition on the planning permission for the original school development. These groups are as follows: Soccer Central, Keldon School of Dance, Leeds City Council, Leeds Baton Rouge, Mosaic church, Westwood Primary School, Hunslet Nelson Cricket Club, Lara Academy of Dance, South Leeds Archers, 220 Sports and Social Club, Leeds Carnegie Basketball Foundation, Beeston Primary School, The Learning Trust (South Leeds), Beeston JFC and Driglington RFC.
The proposed facility will be available for community use for local sports clubs for matches and training purposes. This will help the school strengthen its relationship with the local community whilst also having wider social benefits. These benefits include helping promote physical activities amongst the younger generation and thus combating growing obesity rates. In addition it offers the opportunity to experience other sports and activities not previously experienced and develop a new generation of participants.
Impact on local pitch provision The current proposal introduces a new artificial turf/pitch surface onto the external playing field area and therefore results in the loss of part of the schools playing fields. The re-siting of the pitch has minimised the impact on other sporting features by locating half of the pitch over a hard surfaced area. The applicant states that the loss of this facility would not effect curricula activities as there are already adequate hard surface areas to the west of the proposal to cater for these. The applicant has also submitted details which show that the lower grass rugby pitch can accommodate both 200m and 100m running tracks and a new long jump track and pit and as such maintains the current provision. Further to this, the existing grass football pitch will now be retained on the original surface that is between the proposal and the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the rear garden boundaries of residential properties on Southleigh Grove . This pitch meets with current FA guidelines. On balance it is considered that the proposal complies with the aims and objectives of policies N6 (UDPR) and Sport England Playing Fields Policy E5 and as such is considered acceptable in principle, subject to meeting all other material considerations.
Page 135 2. Design and the character of the area
10.2 The detached modular building is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing classroom building to the east of the main school building. The location is relatively hidden from view outside of the site and sits within the built area of the site. The proposed structure is single storey and of similar scale to other buildings on site. The building is to accommodate a changing facility for users of the proposed all weather pitch which at present cannot be afforded in the school. Its scale, height and design reflect the purpose of the intended use.
With regard to the perimeter fence to the new pitch. This is to be of a mesh design which allows through views and is to be painted green to blend in with the surrounding playing fields and woodland. The artificial pitch will replace a hard surface area as well as a grassed playing area and is to be set at a level to minimise cut and fill with natural shallow banking constructed around the pitch to help merge it into the surrounding landscape.
With regard to the lighting columns these are to have a slim line structure and be afforded a backdrop of woodland to the east and south when viewed from residential estate to the north and be screened by the school buildings to the west. The woodland would also screen the development from the golf course.
As such and when taking into account its distance from residential sites, existing boundary treatment and screening it is considered unlikely that its appearance would have a significantly harmful effect on the general visual amenity of the area or the function of the wider Urban Green Corridor.
3. Access and highway safety considerations
10.4 Highways officers have raised no objection to the proposed development as the community use of the pitch will occur in the evenings after 5pm and as such will not conflict with the school use. The schools car park affords 56 car parking spaces which will be available for the community users of the new pitch. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application will result in an increase in vehicle movements on adjacent streets, this is not deemed to be to such an extent as to cause safety or capacity concerns.
Therefore, subject to a condition restricting the hours of community use to after 17.00 hrs it is acceptable in terms of highway safety.
4. Impact on Residential Amenity
10.5 The all weather pitch has now been re-sited to the south side of the playing fields, adjacent to a wooded area which borders Middleton Golf Course. Further to this the pitch has been turned 90 degrees so that the goal ends are now positioned on the east and west sides of the playing fields. These revisions were made in order to address concerns raised by residents in relation to light pollution and noise nuisance associated with the use. The artificial pitch and associated fencing and lighting columns now distance themselves from the residential sites by approx 60m, thus mitigating the impact of the development when viewed from their sites.
Light pollution - The lights would be used periodically throughout the year apposed to all year round, during the winter months upto 21.00hrs in the evening. Lighting Level details submitted by the applicant indicate that the light spill would fall within the school site (40m from residential boundaries) and designed so that less than 2 Lux Page 136 vertical luminance will be projected towards the residential properties. This meets the requirements for an environmental zone E2 location. The design also minimizes upward light, 0% would be projected into the atmosphere meeting the recommendations of The Campaign for Dark Skies, an organization which look to lower light pollution.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the lights when in use would be visible by residents bordering the north side of the site. The lighting details submitted clearly indicate that light spill would no longer fall within their sites and would retain a 40m unlit corridor.
The Councils Lighting Technicians have been consulted in relation to the lighting columns and from the design simulation provided, they expect no light trespass into the windows of these residential properties.
As such it is considered unlikely that the proposed lighting columns given their periodic hours of use throughout the year, design and distance from the neighbouring sites would pose a significant harmful impact which would outweigh the material planning merits of the scheme
Noise - As discussed above, the proposed pitch has been rotated 90 degrees so that the goal ends sit opposite the school to the west and woodland to the east allowing the pitch to retain 62m to the schools northern boundary and 80m to residential properties. The new pitch will replace an existing pitch and a hard surfaced netball court, between which is a further grass football pitch which is to be retained adjacent to the northern boundary. As such it is considered unlikely that that the artificial grass pitch would generate anymore noise than that already experienced from playing pitches in general.
With regard to potential noise generated from spectators and participants, the community use would be managed and policed by the school as it is now with appropriate action taken if needed to deter inappropriate language or behavior. Mindful of this when taking into account its distance from the northern boundary it is considered unlikely that the new facility would create additional harm which would outweigh the planning merits of the sports facility.
With regard to the fencing this is to be used to retain the ball in the playing area and will incorporate anti vibration EPDC rubber washers to ensure minimal impact noise when hit.
Community Use - With regard to community use this is proposed between the hours of 17.00 and 21.00 weekdays and 09.00 and 21.00 hrs weekends and bank holidays. At these times it is anticipated that noise levels will be more noticeable, however it is questionable if the noise would be any greater than that already experienced from local sports clubs which use the facilities currently on offer at the school.
However, it is likely that the pitch would generate more use at these times because of the enhanced facilities on offer and as such could pose a threat to neighbouring amenity during unsociable hours even when taking into account its distance from the residential properties. In order to mitigate this threat a condition is imposed restricting hours of use 1700hrs and 2100hrs weekdays and 1000hrs and 18.00hrs weekends and bank holidays.
5. SDU
Page 137 10.6 The conservation officer has raised concerns in relation to the potential impact on bats (European Protected Species) that use the adjacent line of trees and group of trees to the south and south-east of the proposed pitch location for foraging and commuting from increased light levels and light spill.
His recommendation is that consideration is given to ensuring there is no light spill onto surrounding linear vegetation features (particularly at along the southern boundary of the pitch).
(The applicant is currently looking at various ways to mitigate this threat without having to significantly restrict the use of the lights during dark nights when the bats would be active)
6. Representations
Objections raised in relation to the need for the facility, highways matters, noise, light pollution, impact on wildlife and visual amenity have been assessed in the appraisal section of the report and found to be acceptable. In response to concerns raised in relation to disruption caused during construction. Whilst this would be for a limited time only (estimated at 3 months) a Management Plan is conditioned to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development in order to control construction generated traffic in and out of the site.
Objections regarding impact to house values and loss of view are not material planning considerations and thus cannot be taken into consideration when determining the application.
In response to objections raised regarding the community use attracting youths to the area, litter and infringement on basic human rights. When in use the facility will be managed and policed by the school and secured by the perimeter fence after hours. It is acknowledged that the site when lit during the winter months will be visible from the residential properties, however the lanterns proposed are indicated as a ‘full cut off’ lantern and as such providing that the lantern is installed with a 0deg. Tilt, the lit area will have a distinct cut off to minimise light spread. The Councils Lighting Technicians have been consulted in relation to the lighting columns and from the design simulation provided, they expect no light trespass into the windows of these residential properties.
11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 On balance, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions as discussed above, the proposal is acceptable given that the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable as the site is situated in a sustainable location.
Background Papers: Application files 12/04061/FU
Certificate of ownership: As applicant
Page 138 12/04061/FU
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 139 SCALE : 1/1500 ° This page is intentionally left blank
Page 140 Agenda Item 14
Originator: David Jones
Tel: 0113 247 8000
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL WEST & SOUTH
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/03373/FU – DEMOLITION OF CHURCH, LAYING OUT OF ACCESS AND ERECT 14 DWELLINGS, CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY, WESTERTON ROAD AND WATERWOOD CLOSE, WEST ARDSLEY
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Stonebridge Homes Ltd & 15 August 2012 14 November 2012 The Diocese of Leeds
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Ardsley & Robin Hood Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION DEFER AND DELEGATE to the Chief Planning Officer for approval , subject to the specified conditions and following completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters: x Greenspace contribution £ 39,972.22 x Provision of Metro Cards £ 6,275.00
In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.
1. Time Limit on permission 2. Plans to be approved 3. Details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels to be agreed. 4. Submission of walling and roofing materials. 5. Sample panel to be erected. 6. Details of fences and walls to be provided. 7. Construction Management Plan, including provision for contractors during construction 8. Provision of visibility splay onto Waterwood Close 9. Provision of sight lines onto Westerton Road. 10.Laying out of areas to be used by vehicles. Page 141 11. Retention of garages 12. Submission and implementation of landscaping details. 13. Submission of surfacing materials. 14. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drainage details. 15. Reporting of unexpected contamination. 16. Submission of verification reports. 17. Removal of permitted development rights for additional windows in gable ends. 18. Sustainable construction.
Reasons for Approval: This application has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the RSS and UDPR 2006 and policy guidance within the NPPF and it is considered that the scheme provides for a good quality residential scheme. The application site is in a reasonably sustainable location and is a derelict brownfield site, therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable. No highways and drainage issues are raised and the scheme offers an acceptable level of amenity to future occupiers and will have no detrimental impact on the amenity of other nearby occupiers or to the visual amenity of the locality. The application is considered to comply with the policies as set out in the development plan and constitutes a sustainable form of development.
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application is brought to Panel at the request of Panel member Councillor Finnigan who has stated that residents have concerns about the cumulative impact of this and other nearby proposed developments.
1.2 The application site is unallocated for any purpose in the development plan, but is a derelict brownfield site in a reasonably sustainable location . Therefore, there is no objection in principle to housing. The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Guidance. The form of the houses, as two storey, constructed in brickwork and concrete roof tiles, is considered to be in keeping with the area, and would not adversely impact on the amenities of nearby residents.
1.3 As such, the application is recommended for approval. The application is considered to comply with policies GP5, GP7, BD5, H3, LD1, N2, N4, N12, N13, N25, N38B, T2, T5,T6, T24 of the UDP (Review 2006), and relevant supplementary and national planning policy guidance. As such the application is recommended for approval.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The full planning application is to demolish the church building and erect 14 detached houses on the site. The two storey houses would be in the form of 8 detached houses and 6 semi-detached houses. Three pairs of semi-detached houses, and one detached house would front onto Westerton Road. The other 7 units would be off Waterwood Close, with three detached houses fronting onto Waterwood Close, and four detached houses served off an access road, to the rear of the site.
2.2 The houses would be constructed in brick and concrete roof tiles. The houses would have gable ended roofs.
2.3 The 14 houses would be provided in a mix of two, three & four bed houses, with the provision of 28 no. car park spaces. The proposals will result in a net residential density of approx 44 dwellings/ hectare. Page 142 2.4 A narrow strip of land between Waterwood Close and the application site is in third party ownership, and does not form part of the application site.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The application site is within the village of West Ardsley, some 5 miles south of Leeds City Centre. The site comprises a rectangular area of land occupied by a church building and car park of approximately 0.32ha (0.79acres). The existing redundant Church building, with its associated outbuildings/ structures, all of which are to be demolished. The boundaries are clearly defined by existing site features, including fences.
3.2 The site is surrounded almost totally by other residential developments and existing housing stock. To the north, east & west of the site, the housing stock is more traditional in form, generally of brick construction with tile roofs. Houses to the west and north are mainly suburban hipped roofed semi-detached houses, whilst houses to the east are tightly spaced detached houses. To the south west of the site exists a more recent development of individual lower density housing. The houses are predominantly two storey.
3.3 To the south of the site, beyond No.8 Waterwood Close, is a paddock and various structures in connection with an unauthorised builder’s yard, (subject to an Enforcement Notice). This area has outline planning permission for residential development and a reserved matters application for 12 dwellings was approved at the October Plans Panel meeting.
3.4 The prevailing character of surrounding development is pre/post war suburban housing, with external materials comprising varying ages & extent of more traditional materials, such as brick, render, slate & concrete tiled roofs.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 None in relation to this site.
4.2 12/02974/RM - Application at land to the south of Waterwood Close to erect 12 detached dwellings. This application was approved at the October Plans Panel meeting.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 The layout of the scheme has been revised to improve the layout. These changes are as follows: (i) enhancement to the footpath along Westerton Road, by widening the footpath to 2m. (ii) dwellings along the Westerton Road frontage resited so they form a continuous frontage with adjoining houses along Westerton Road. (iii) increase in garden sizes for the dwellings fronting onto Westerton Road. (iv) narrower house type provided so that increased garden size can be provided. (v) boundary treatments improved. (vi) house type to junction of Waterwood Close and Westerton Road improved to provide greater interest at this prominent plot.
Page 143 6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.1 The application was publicised by Site Notice on 24 th August 2012.
6.2 Letters of representation have been received from four local householders, and from one Morley resident. These are objections to the proposal, on the following grounds:
6.3 There are 1000+ properties for sale within a 3 mile radius of our postcode therefore we fail to understand councils inability to prove a 5 year supply of housing in this area. Overdevelopment of the area, when taken with other developments. The semi rural character will be changed to that of an estate. The density of the development is not in keeping with the character of the area. Family housing will impact on local schools, hospitals and public amenities. Cumulative impact of this and other developments in the immediate and wider locality. What will this mean to the drainage and water supply in the area? Impact on Traffic /nuisance parking and corresponding impact on safety. The parking facilities for residents living on the Westerton road are very limited, with majority / all the cars being parked on the road side making it a very busy road, especially at peak times. Frequent instances where the vans / cars owned by people living on Westerton road have been parked on the street leading into the Waterwood close cul-de-sac. The developers have claimed that the visitors can use off street parking on the street leading into Waterwood Close, turning an otherwise quiet cul-de- sac into a busy noisy estate. The bus service is infrequent. Metro Cards will not encourage bus use. Children play on the road leading into Waterwood Close and the increase in the number of kids due to this proposed development of church land and land adjoining Waterwood Close will only cause more potential safety issues with the increase in vehicle traffic to and from the new estates. The traffic flows are greater than that submitted in the Transport Statement. Parking on the south side of the stretch of Westerton Road from Haigh Moor Road to the Smithy P.H. should be prohibited. Impact on 8 and 9 in respect of the parking and access arrangements. Disruption from construction traffic. Overlooking of adjoining property. Houses in the North East Corner of the site will overlook property with 3 properties having direct views into a large sun lounge window and southerly and westerly facing lounge patio doors. The 21 metres glass to glass criteria has been met with the present design. These together with the houses which are to be built on the extension of Waterwood Close will completely destroy any privacy as there will be 27 windows looking directly into the house. It is considered that there are so few objections as little consideration was given to the objections raised in respect of the Waterwood Close proposal.
6.4 Ed Balls M.P. has been contacted by one of the objectors, and he has asked that the representations of his constituent be taken into account. The main thrust of the objections is that both proposals (this proposal, and the one to the south, off Waterwood Close, would represent overdevelopment of the area, with increased traffic and on street parking, and detriment to the character of the area.
6.5 Ward members have been advised of the proposal, and of the draft Section 106 Agreement. Members have requested that any Section 106 monies (not including the TravelCard contribution) should be spent on greenspace in the locality, and not on education enhancements, despite their concerns at the pressure on schools in the area. Page 144 7.0 CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES:
STATUTORY
7.1 None
NON-STATUTORY
7.2 Highway Authority – No objections to the revised plans.
7.3 Flood Risk Management – No objection
7.4 Metro - No objections. Request for MetroCards for future residents.
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 The development plan includes the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) and the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP) along with relevant supplementary planning guidance and documents. The Local Development Framework will eventually replace the UDP but at the moment this is still undergoing production with the Core Strategy still being at the draft stage. The RSS was issued in May 2008 and includes a broad development strategy for the region, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development including housing.
8.2 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted May 2008) No regional policies are relevant to this proposal, which is reserved matters submission in respect of the scale, appearance and landscaping of the proposed development.
8.3 Unitary Development Plan Review (adopted July 2006) x Policy GP5: refers to development proposals should seek to avoid loss of amenity. x Policy GP7: Use of planning obligations. x Policy GP11: Sustainable Design Principles. x Policy BD2: Siting and Design of New Buildings. x Policy BD5: new buildings design consideration should be given to own amenity and surroundings. x Policy H4: housing proposals on unallocated sites. x Policy N12: all development proposals should respect fundamental priorities for urban design. x Policy N13: design of new buildings should be of high quality and have regard to character and appearance of surroundings. x Policy T2: development should be capable of being served by highway network and not adding to or creating problems of safety. x Policy T5: ensure the safe and secure access and provision for pedestrians and cyclists within highway and new development schemes. x Policy T6: satisfactory access and provision for people with mobility problems within highway and paving schemes and within new development should be provided. x Policy T24: parking guidelines for new developments x Policy N2: support given to establishment of a hierarchy of greenspaces
Page 145 x Policy N4: provision of greenspace to ensure accessibility for residents of proposed development x Policy N25: Site boundaries should be designed in a positive manner. x Policy LD1: landscape schemes should meet specific criteria of good design.
8.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Supplementary Planning Guidance provides a more detailed explanation of how strategic policies of the Unitary Development Plan can be practically implemented. The following SPGs are relevant and have been included in the Local Development Scheme, with the intention to retain these documents as 'guidance' for local planning purposes. x SPG3: Affordable Housing; x SPG4: Greenspace Relating to New Housing Development; x SPG 11: Contributions For School Provision From Housing Developments; x SPG13: Neighbourhoods for Living;
8.5 As well as the supplementary planning guidance documents that have been retained, new supplementary planning documents are relevant: x Affordable Housing SPD (2009); x Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011); and x Street Design Guide.
8.6 National Planning Policy Framework Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Protecting Green Belt land Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY:
8.7 The National Planning Policy Framework was issued at the end of March 2012 and is now a material planning consideration. The NPPF provides up to date national policy guidance which is focused on helping achieve sustainable development. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The basis for decision making remains that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Planning System should have a role in " supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being" (NPPF paragraph 7).
EMERGING CORE STRATEGY:
8.8 The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES Page 146 9.1 It is the considered view that the main issues are: x Principle of development x Highway Safety x Impact on Visual Amenity x Residential Amenity x Section 106 Agreement x Representations
10.0 APPRAISAL
Principle of development UDP considerations - Policy H4 10.1 Proposals for housing on land not specifically identified for that purpose in the UDP are considered against Policy H4. This policy states that on sites not identified for that purpose in the UDP but which lie within the Main and Smaller Urban Areas as defined on the proposals map, or are otherwise in a demonstrably sustainable location, development will be permitted provided it is acceptable in sequential terms, is clearly within the capacity of existing and proposed infrastructure, and complies with all other relevant policies of the UDP. Paragraph 7.2.15 of the UDP states that although most H4 sites will be in the Main and Smaller Urban areas, proposals are also likely to be acceptable in other locations which are demonstrably sustainable. “Judgments will be made on the basis of consideration of the availability and frequency of bus and train services to service centres, and on the range of services available locally, including shops, health facilities and schools”. 10.2 The current site falls outside the Main and Smaller Urban Areas as defined, therefore a judgment needs to be made as to whether the location is demonstrably sustainable.
10.3 Whether this site provides a demonstrably sustainable location for residential development under Policy H4 . 10.4 In respect of the outline application on the adjoining site on Waterwood Close, Highways commented that the site is reasonably sustainable and meets the accessibility criteria in the Council’s emerging Core Strategy and the RSS and is in a location which meets the aims of the Council’s Policy on promoting sustainable travel.
10.5 Whilst the site is approximately 3km from the nearest designated town centre of Morley, it is located in West Ardsley which is classed as a smaller settlement within the Core Strategy (Preferred Approach October 2009).
10.6 The location meets the criteria for walking, cycling and public transport with local shops, health centre and primary schools all being within an acceptable walking distance of the site and Morley Town centre, local High Schools, Industrial estates/Business Parks and the Railway stations of Morley and Outwood being within an acceptable cycling distance of the site. There are a number of bus stops, again, well within acceptable walking distances, which provides the following services:
Public Transport Accessibility
10.6.1 The nearest bus stops provide for routes travelling in both directions on Westerton Road and Haigh Moor Road. The bus stops are located approximately 150m east and west of the Site boundary. Page 147 10.6.2 All of the bus stops are well within the desirable 400m (5 minute) walk distance from all of the proposed dwellings and therefore comply with Leeds City Council (LCC) policy guidance.
10.6.3 The Westerton Road bus stops benefit from a shelter and the latest timetable information and are served by the 425 service between Wakefield, Morley and Bradford. The 425 service runs hourly in each direction.
10.6.4 The Haigh Moor Road bus stops benefit from a pole and plate and the latest timetable information and are served by the 117, 153 and 205 services. The 117 provides an hourly service to Wakefield, Ossett and Leeds. The 153 provides an two hourly service to Morley and Castleford, whilst the 205 provides an hourly service to Pudsey and Dewsbury.
10.6.5 Based on RSS guidance on measuring accessibility in urban areas 'any public transport service with a frequency of one bus every 10-15 minutes is thought of as offering a good level of service'. The guidance continues to advise that when multiple services operate down a corridor the frequencies may be summed to give a total frequency for the corridor.
10.6.6 Ideally, a higher frequency of services to the nearest major public transport interchanges (i.e. Leeds/Wakefield) should be provided however, in this instance given the close proximity of a number of bus stops to the site serving multiple destinations and all within a maximum walk distance of approximately 200m it could be considered appropriate to sum the frequencies as described above.
10.6.7 On this basis the site could be considered to be served by at least 4 buses per hour (albeit to differing public transport interchanges) with additional services provided by the 153.
10.6.8 Based on the Cilty Council’s draft Core Strategy Accessibility Standards the site is located within 180m of local services such as newsagents/post offices which is within the 15 min walk guidance, within 900m of Westerton Road Primary School which is within the 20 min walk guidance and within 1.4miles of Woodkirk High School which is within the 30 min direct walk guidance. Also within the draft standards access to Employment and to Town/City Centres should be within a 5 min walk to a bus stop offering a 15 min frequency to a major public transport interchange. In this instance, as detailed above a number of bus services operate in the vicinity of the site serving Castleford Town centre and Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford city centres equating to a service every 15 minutes to differing public transport interchanges.
10.6.9 Given the small scale of the development and that the site meets all other accessibility inidicators although the level of frequency is not ideal, it is considered that a highways reason for refusal on accessibility alone could not be substantiated.
10.7 The site meets the general sustainability criteria and is within an established urban area with existing footpaths and street lighting. These factors would make walking, cycling and Public Transport an attractive alternative mode of transport to the private car.
Local schools 10.8 In respect of local schools, Children’s Services has estimated that 14 dwellings would generate an estimated three pupils across all school years. The potential impact would be on Westerton Primary and Blackgates Primary Schools. The Page 148 Ardsley/Tingley Planning area will be over capacity by 2013/14. Blackgates Primary school has recently increased its admission number, and had a small amount of surplus capacity but is now close to capacity and will be over capacity by 2013/14 and would be unable to accommodate pupils generated from this site.
10.9 Leeds planning policy as set out in SPG11, ‘Contributions for School Provision from Housing Developments’, sets a trigger of 50 new dwellings before a financial contribution is required towards education provision. East Plans Panel considered the above issues in respect of the outline housing proposal on the adjoining site, and no objections were raised on these grounds, although this application is an incremental addition to development in the area.
Local character 10.10 The site is currently occupied by a redundant single storey, part brick, part timber church building, of very limited architectural merit. The remainder of the site was until recently occupied by a car park and open grassed areas. The character of the surrounding area is described in section 3.0 of this report and the proposal is described at section 2.0. From the descriptions given it is considered that the houses in terms of their general form and proportions sit comfortably with the established residential character of the area. The spatial setting of the dwellings also has regard to the areas character. As such there would be no adverse impact on local character with the construction of housing, which would be compatible with the area.
Highway safety 10.11 In respect of cumulative impact of this development (and the 12 houses subject of the recent grant of planning permission on the adjoining site) on the highways network, Highways Officers have made the following comments:
10.12 Waterwood Close is constructed as a Type 2 Street based on parameters in the Street Design Guide i.e. 5.5m carriageway flanked by 2m wide footways this could serve upto 200 dwellings. Waterwood Close currently serves 9 dwellings. 12/02974/RM has approval for 12 dwellings off Waterwood Close and 12/03373/FU seeks approval for 7 dwellings off Waterwood Close with a further 7 dwellings taking direct access off Westerton Road. This would result in 30 properties in total taking access from Waterwood Close.
10.13 With regards to traffic generation, an automated traffic count was carried out on Westerton Road in May/June 2012 which showed a daily two way flow of 4640 vehicles and a PM peak (5-6pm) two way flow of 465 vehicles.
10.14 Based on a daily trip rate of 8 per dwelling (this can range on average between 6-10 per dwelling) this would result in 168 additional vehicle movements per day which represents an increase in traffic on Westerton Road of 3.6% and based on a PM peak trip of rate 0.8 this would result in 17 additional vehicle movements in the peak hour representing an increase of 3.6%.
10.15 Taking into account daily and seasonal fluctuations in traffic this increase would not be material to the operation of the highway network.
10.16 Additionally, this application has the benefit of both widening the footway along the Westerton Road frontage and improving visibility at the junction of Waterwood Close and Westerton Road to meet current standards.
Page 149 10.17 The revised internal layout of the estate conforms to the current highways guidance (Leeds Street Design Guide). The parking arrangements are acceptable, all houses have at least two off street parking spaces
Impact on Visual Amenity 10.18 The two storey dwellings along the Westerton Road frontage have been resited so they are would be on the same building line as the adjoining houses along Westerton Road, either side of the Westerton Road junction. The dwellings would be spaced in a similar manner to both the detached houses to the east of the site and the semi- detached houses opposite and to the west. Plot 7 has been redesigned to provide additional interest to the prominent corner by the provision of openings in the gable end, at ground floor and first floor level.
10.19 The layout and materials match the surrounding, and reinforce the local character.
Residential amenity 10.20 It is considered, in view of the size of the site and the distance from neighbouring properties, that appropriate separation distances (in line with the guidance set out in Neighbourhoods for Living) from existing dwellings could be achieved. Plot 1 would sit adjacent to the predominantly blank elevation of the adjoining existing house to the east, and would not project into the rear aspect of that property. In addition, Plots 10 -13 would be located 10.5m from the rear boundary with existing bungalows/dormer bungalows to the east, which complies with guidance in respect of distances to boundaries. The dormer bungalow to the rear of the site has extended the property under permitted development and has openings facing towards the boundary with the application site. To prevent ground floor overlooking into these windows, the applicant is proposing a 1.8m high close boarded fence to the boundary. Although the distance between the two sets of windows ( 13.5 – 14m) from secondary, to secondary is less than the 15m normally expected, it is considered that as the new houses are 10.5m from the boundary, it would be unreasonable for the development to be prejudiced by the erection of a permitted development extension, with openings so close to a site boundary.
10.21 The other properties closest the application site is 8/9Waterwood Close. Plot 14 does not project into the rear aspect of this property, and Plot 13 to the rear of the site faces towards Plot 14, rather than towards No.8/9. It is considered there would be no dominance or overlooking of the nearest property.
Section 106 Agreement 10.22 A draft Section 106 Agreement accompanies the planning application, which contains the following provisions: (i) A sum of £39,972.22, in lieu of local greenspace enhancements; (ii) A sum of £ 6275.00 in respect of provision of TravelCards for future residents.
10.23 New tests relating to the legality of planning obligations have been introduced by way of new secondary legislation in the form of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations introduced by Central Government as of 6 April 2010 which impact on planning obligations.
10.24 Whilst the focus of the CIL is to give local authorities the ability in future to levy a charge on a wide range of development proposals within their area the regulations also introduce a new legal test relating to the use of planning obligations based on the existing policy tests. The effect of this is that it will be unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account in a planning decision to authorise development if the obligation is not: Page 150 (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development (test (b)); and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
10.25 These legal tests have been applied to the obligation in the S106 agreement which the applicant is to enter into as part of the application. The requirements are directly related to the development as they will secure enhancements which will meet the needs of the residents of the development and are reasonably related to the scale and kind of development. As such, the obligations are considered to be compliant with the three new legal tests. The contributions are in accordance with policy and the development would not be considered acceptable without these obligations.
10.26 There is no provision for affordable housing, as the threshold for affordable housing is 15 units and above, and no contribution towards local schools, as the threshold for such contributions is 50 units and above.
Representations 10.27 Issues in relation to cumulative impact of the two local developments are addressed in the report. Sustainability issues in respect of local facilities were considered by East Plans Panel in relation to the planning application on land at Waterwood Close, and no objections were raised, and permission was granted. This proposal adds a further 14 dwellings, and the cumulative impact is one that needs to be considered.
11.0 CONCLUSION
11.1 The site is previously developed brownfield land, in a reasonably sustainable location. Therefore, there is no objection in principle to housing on the site.
11.2 The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Guidance.
11.3 The form of the houses in the amended layout of 14 dwellings, as two storey, constructed in mainly brick, is considered to be in keeping with the immediate area, and would not adversely impact on the amenities of nearby residents.
11.4 It is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposal is not so great that the proposal could reasonably be refused. As such, the planning application is recommended for approval.
12.0 Background Papers: Application file Certificate of Ownership: The Diocese of Leeds
Page 151 12/03373/FU
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567Page 152 SCALE : 1/1500 ° Agenda Item 15
Originator: Michael Howitt
Tel: 0113 247 8000
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
PLANS PANEL WEST AND SOUTH
Date: 8 th November 2012
Subject: APPLICATION 12/03494/FU – Change of use of vacant warehouse to a private hire taxi booking office with car parking and installation of radio mast– Hunger Hill, Morley, Leeds, LS27 9AD.
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Morley South 21 st August 2012 16 th October 2012
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Equality and Diversity Morley South Community Cohesion
Narrowing the Gap Yes Ward Members consulted (referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1. Standard full time limit. 2. Development in accordance with approved plans 3. No more than six vehicles to operate from the premises. 4. No customer visits to premises between 1900 and 0800 hours 5. No servicing or repair outside of 0800 and 1800 hours. 6. No playing of music or amplified sound 7. Car park to be laid out, surfaced and drained
Page 153 Reason for approval: The application has operated successfully for two years without complaint, raises no issues of detrimental harm to residential amenity and no issues harm to highways safety and as a consequence, complies with policies GP5, SF14 and T2 of the UDP Review, as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, and having regard to all other material considerations, the applications are recommended for approval
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This application is brought to Plans Panel (South and West) at the request of Councillors Judith Elliott and Shirley Varley due to concerns and the proposal will give rise to residential amenity issues through noise and disturbance. A Members site visit is requested.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.1 The application is for the renewal of a temporary use for the use of a warehouse as a private hire booking office and radio mast.
2.2 There are no proposals for any physical alterations to the premises other than the retention of the radio mast and the resurfacing of the car park with tarmac and the application remains the same as the previous two other than it being for a permanent use. There is no intensification of use proposed by this application.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.1 The application site comprises a number of buildings that are two storey, built in stone and brick. Most of the properties in Hunger Hill have been demolished and the only property left is the Sportsman Public House.
3.2 Beyond the application site are a number of garages. However behind the buildings, there are a number of residential properties on King Street and also opposite on Great Northern Street. The site is located adjacent to the Morley Town Centre Conservation Area.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.1 There have been two previous relevant applications on the site
10/03418/FU – Change of use of vacant warehouse to a private hire taxi booking office with car parking and installation of radio mast. Approved 23.09.2010
Page 154 11/03334/FU – Change of use of vacant warehouse to a private hire taxi booking office with car parking and installation of radio mast. Approved 10.10.2011
Both applications were temporary applications for one year to enable assessment of amenity and highways issues.
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS:
5.1 The application was submitted without any pre application negotiations or discussions.
6.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Statutory Consultations: 6.1 None.
Non Statutory Consultations: 6.2 Neighbourhoods and Housing – No objection subject to conditions to control matters of potential harm to residential amenity Highways – No objections subject to conditions
7.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
7.1 The application was advertised by site notice on 31 August. 1 letter of objection has been received and the objection is on the following grounds.
Public Response: x There are residential amenity issues raised by a 24/7 operation with revving cars doors slamming, car horns and car alarms. x There is a danger of traffic issues in terms of traffic and parking congestion. x There is a surfeit of taxi companies within the area already
Ward Members; x concerns that the proposal will give rise to residential amenity issues through noise and disturbance
Morley Town Council: x The Town Council support the proposal for a full permission
8.0 PLANNING POLICIES:
8.1 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) and the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). The RSS was issued in May 2008 and includes a broad development
Page 155 strategy for the region, setting out regional priorities in terms of location and scale of development. However, the RSS is a strategic planning document, used to inform more detailed policies at a local level. Accordingly, it is not considered that there are any particular policies which are relevant to the assessment of this proposal. 8.2 The Publication Draft of the Core Strategy was issued for public consultation on 28 th February 2012 with the consultation period closing on 12 th April 2012. Following consideration of any representations received, the Council intends to submit the draft Core Strategy for examination. The Core Strategy set sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. As the Core Strategy is in its pre submission stages only limited weight can be afforded to any relevant policies at this point in time.
8.3 The following policies from the UDP are relevant:
x Policy GP5 seeks to ensure that development proposals resolve detailed planning considerations, including amenity. x Policy SF14 advises that the principal considerations for assessing proposed taxi/ private hire offices will be impact on neighbourhood, vehicular movements, parking, location and appearance x Policy T2 ensures that development proposals should not create new, or exacerbate existing, highway problems.
National Policy/Guidance: x National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
1. Highways 2. Residential amenity
10.0 APPRAISAL:
1. Highways.
10.1 Highways did not have any issues at the time of the previous applications for the temporary permissions; there have been no ‘Personal Injury Accidents’ within the previous twelve months and also that the traffic team have confirmed that there have been no issues or complaints within that time and as circumstances remain the same with regard to visibility and parking levels there is no objection with regard to highway safety.
2. Impact on Residential Amenity
Page 156 10.2 The premises are located on a road that has no residential properties and only a public house. However there are residential properties nearby on both King Street and Great Northern Street. The building backs onto King Street and provides a buffer between the car park. The properties on Great Northern Street face on to the car park but are separated by a 1.8 metre high brick wall There was considered to be a potential for disturbance to these properties at the time of the previous applications and it was with this in mind that the number of vehicles operating at any one time was restricted to six and that hours of use to visiting customers was restricted in the original decision. Whilst there have been no known complaints during the period of the application, there have since been one complaint received that raises issues of harm to residential amenity. As no complaints with regard to residential amenity have been received by either vehicle licensing or Neighbourhoods and Housing, it is now considered that as the business has operated for two years without issue under temporary permissions that the business is not harmful to the residential amenity of the area. Additionally, the resurfacing of part of the car park with tarmac replacing the existing loose material should reduce tyre noise and will reduce the harm to residential amenity.
11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 On balance, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions as discussed above, the proposal is acceptable given that the business has operated for two years without complaint during that period to either Highways or Neighbourhoods and Housing. As such, it raises no issues of detrimental harm to residential amenity and no issues of harm to highways safety and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
Background Papers: Application files 12/03494/FU
Certificate of ownership: Notice served on owner and certificate B signed
Page 157 12/03294/FU
SOUTH AND WEST PLANS PANEL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019567Page 158 SCALE : 1/1500 °