Craven councillors 'take six-figure gamble' by rejecting homes (From Craven Herald)

Plans for new homes on greenfield site at Elsey Croft, Skipton, thrown out

3:36pm Thursday 9th June 2011 in News By Lesley Tate, Senior Reporter

Residents of Moorview estate protest about the Skipton Properties’ proposed development on Elsey Croft, Skipton, which was rejected last week

Plans to build more than 100 new homes on the outskirts of Skipton have been thrown out.

A packed Skipton Auction Mart echoed to loud cheers as Craven District Council’s planning committee went against officer advice and refused outline plans to build on greenfield site Elsey Croft.

Councillors, who voted five to four against the scheme, were repeatedly warned that a decision to refuse would be difficult to defend if the developer – Skipton Properties – decided to lodge an appeal.

Sian Watson, the Council’s planning policy manager, said a comparable unsuccessful appeal had cost the authority £138,000.

Planning officer Roger France said councillors faced a very difficult decision, but stressed they were up against the Council’s own failure to meet Government-set housing targets of 250 new homes per year.

He said even if the Elsey Croft development went ahead, the Council would have failed to meet the shortfall of new houses, which currently stood at 256.

Because there were no previously-used brownfield sites available, the shortfall would have to be made up by using greenfield sites.

“We cannot demonstrate that we have sufficient land elsewhere to meet the targets,” said Mr France.

“If the application is refused, it is likely that the applicant will appeal and it is extremely likely that the appeal will win and that there will be costs awarded against the Council.”

Mr France said it was difficult to say, but he believed costs – if the Council lost any appeal – would be at the high end of a six-figure sum.

He said he felt like the Clint Eastwood character Dirty Harry. “Do you feel lucky?” he asked councillors. “Because, if we go to appeal, we won’t be able to defend it.”

Councillor Alan Sutcliffe suggested it was a bad time for developers to lodge appeals in the light of changing planning policies and the forthcoming Localism Bill, which would put greater weight on community opinion.

“These policies are not set in stone, if they were, we would be certain of the outcome of every planning appeal,” he said. “We should put the interests of Skipton first and refuse this application.”

The committee was being asked to determine the principle of development.

There were indicative plans for 107 houses but details would be under a separate application.

Skipton Properties’ agent David Walton said the development was needed and new houses would bring vitality and jobs.

But objectors, including Peter Rigby, for the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), Skipton Town Council, and the Save Elsey Croft Group, said there was no justifiable need, that roads would become congested and green fields be lost.

Councillor John Roberts said they could not ignore the level of public feeling against the proposals, including a petition signed by more than 4,300 people and almost 600 letters.

“This is open countryside, and if we approve this application, it will never return as a greenfield site,” he said.

Councillor Paul English said there was enough flexibility in planning policy to put up a robust defence if the applicant appealed.

Reasons for refusal will be discussed at the next planning committee meeting, on Monday, June 27.