Thorpe-on-the-Hill: Plans for 22 acre commercial estate in village near Leeds and Wakefield refused by council

The full planning application proposed the development of a commercial estate on a lane off Thorpe Lower Lane and Lingwell Gate Lane in Thorpe-on-the-Hill. The development included 13 industrial and logistics units spanning approximately 22 acres.

In the application, originally submitted in March 2022, applicant Tungsten Properties provided detailed plans for the units, which included integrated office accommodation, dedicated parking, cycle shelters and access links.

The applicant stated that the design, construction, materials, and colour palette of the buildings were "carefully considered to ensure that the development delivers units that are contextually appropriate to the site setting”.

The proposed development faced significant resistance from the local community, receiving over 140 objections to the plans.

Don’t miss a single thing when it comes to news across Leeds, sign up for the Yorkshire Evening Post’s free daily newsletter today.

Leeds City Council refused the application on Monday, January 13, with the chief planning officer expressing concerns about a range of issues, including visual and residential amenity, landscaping and ecological impacts, highway concerns, flood risk, and safety related to former coal mining activity.

The officer report noted: "The application has a statutory consultee objection from the Coal Authority due to insufficient information. Further to this due to not providing the requested details regarding flood risk at the site an additional statutory consultee, the LPA’s Flood Risk Management Team, is unable to support the application."

The report highlighted that the site raised visual amenity concerns due to the overdevelopment of the area and insufficient landscaping for screening. There were also residential amenity concerns relating to the overbearing presence of the buildings, their proximity to residential properties, and inadequate information about potential noise pollution from the site.

The officer concluded: "These points weigh heavily against the development and are not outweighed by the economic benefits outlined by the applicant. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above."