Land at Former Ashfield Works, Westgate, Otley

Decision

allowed, 3 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Sabu

Authority

Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6006128

Application reference

25/04310/FU

Procedure

hearing

Development

29 retirement apartments with communal facilities, parking and landscaping, plus a detached open-market cottage

Homes

30

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4, HO7, HO1, L2(1)(b)

Development plan policies

Leeds UDP Review 2006 GP5, BD5, N19, Leeds Core Strategy 2014/2019 P10, P11, Site Allocations Plan, Otley NP 2018-2028 MU2, BE9, Ashfield Works Planning & Development Brief 2012

Main issues

future occupiers' outdoor amenity space; character and appearance; Otley Conservation Area

Summary

29 retirement flats and a detached cottage on a vacant part of an allocated former works site in Otley town centre and conservation area. Allowed after a hearing. The inspector found real conflict with local amenity-space standards (communal garden too small and enclosed), but the harm was limited by a nearby park. Under S4, with HO7 substantial weight for evidenced older-persons' need (via HO1), the benefits were not "substantially outweighed", and S4 was treated as a material consideration outweighing the development plan conflict.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "A new National Planning Practice Framework (Framework) was published in August 2026 … I have consulted the main parties and taken their comments into account" (DL ¶3; "Planning Practice Framework" is a slip).
• Outdoor amenity: CONFLICT (limited harm). Garden space "significantly smaller than that required" by Neighbourhoods for Living (DL ¶12); the guidance is "a useful guide for assessing communal amenity space for retirement living accommodation" despite little justification (DL ¶13). Level differences and a 3-storey block mean it "would have an oppressive outlook" (DL ¶17). But "Manor Garth Park is a realistic option for future occupiers … Accordingly, the harm resulting from the conflict with the identified development plan policies would be limited" (DL ¶22).
• Character / CA — cottage: PASS. Site "provides a negative contribution to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶27); cottage "would infill the townscape gap appropriately in terms of scale, form and building line" (DL ¶42); "The scheme as a whole would enhance the significance of the CA" (DL ¶46). A front door plus windows is an "active frontage"; residential use is not excluded (DL ¶31–32).
• Parking. Town-centre location justifies the parking provision (DL ¶49).

Planning balance

S4 run explicitly (DL ¶51). For: L2 better use of vacant land, substantial weight (DL ¶52); HO7 with HO1 older people, SHMA need, "substantial weight to the benefit of providing 29 dwellings for older people" (DL ¶55); s106 contributions moderate (DL ¶56); no larger outdoor space likely on any viable alternative, "minor weight" (DL ¶57). Against: amenity conflict, limited harm (DL ¶58). "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed … Framework Policy S4 directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved. This material consideration warrants a decision other than in accordance with the development plan" (DL ¶59).

What made the difference

The only surviving harm was a local amenity-standard shortfall, softened by the town-centre location and a park nearby. Nothing engaged a Framework "should be refused" policy. Set against that was substantial HO7 weight tied to a recent SHMA older-persons' need, so the S4 threshold ("substantially outweighed") was nowhere near met. Had the design harmed the conservation area, HE6 would have been in play and the result could have differed.

Transferable points

• S4 operates as a material consideration capable of outweighing a development plan conflict: "Framework Policy S4 directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved" (DL ¶59).
• HO7 substantial weight extends to specialist older-persons' housing through HO1 where a SHMA evidences need (DL ¶¶54–55).
• Local amenity-space shortfalls can be real conflicts but carry only limited harm where public open space is a short walk away (DL ¶22).
• Filling a townscape gap that currently harms a conservation area can enhance its significance (DL ¶¶43, 46).
• "Active frontage" does not require a commercial use; a front door and windows onto the street suffices (DL ¶¶31–32).
• Drafting slips: "National Planning Practice Framework" (DL ¶3); DL ¶58 refers to harm to "neighbouring occupiers" where the finding was about future occupiers.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Vacant, soil-covered part of an allocated former engineering works site in Otley town centre
• Communal garden below neighbouring ground levels and enclosed by 3-storey block; far below Neighbourhoods for Living / Green Space Guidance quantum
• Average resident age around 80; passive use of outdoor space expected
• Manor Garth Park a short walk away via riverside path
• s106 affordable housing and green space contributions resolved two refusal reasons
• Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework
• Cross costs applications decided separately (not read)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.