Agenda and minutes
Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds
Contact: Helen Gray
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest To declare any personal/prejudicial interest for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct Minutes: The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purposes of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct
Councillor Andrew – Application 09/03666/FU redevelopment proposals for St Josephs Care Home, Horsforth - declared a personal interest as a member of WYITA Transport Planning Steering Group as officers of WYITA had commented on the application (minute 61 refers).
Councillor A Castle – declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 regarding enforcement matters at 22 Shire Oak Road as a member of Leeds Civic Trust. The Civic Trust had commented on redevelopment proposals determined by the previous Panel meeting (minute 57 refers)
Councillor A Castle – Application 09/03666/FU redevelopment proposals for St Josephs Care Home, Horsforth - declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust. Councillor Castle noted the Civic Trust had lodged an objection to the proposals, however she stated she had an open mind about the application (minute 61 refers)
Councillors Campbell & Leadley Application 09/03666/FU redevelopment proposals for St Josephs Care Home, Horsforth – declared personal interests as local authority appointed members of WYITA as officers of WYITA had commented on the proposals (minute 61 refers).
|
|
Apologies for Absence To receive any apologies for absence
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Harper. The Panel welcomed Councillor J McKenna acting as her substitute.
|
|
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held 29th October 2009 as a correct record
(Copy attached) Minutes: RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held 29th October 2009 be agreed as a correct record
|
|
Update on Enforcement Matters - 22 Shire Oak Road, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 PDF 474 KB To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer updating Members on enforcement matters in relation to 22 Shire Oak Road, Headingley.
(report attached) Minutes: Further to minutes 49 & 50 of the meeting held 29 October 2009 when Panel granted relevant permissions for conversion works to the east wing of the property, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report on a number of unauthorised works that had taken place previously at the property which were highlighted during the Panels’ deliberations.
Officers reported that all of the proposed Listed Building Notices detailed in the report requiring the developer take remedial action to various aspects of the site had been served on 25th November 2009. Advice was awaited from LCC legal Services on whether the proposed Tree Replacement Notice could be served.
Photographs of the site including the Summerhouse, main building, coach house, arcaded wall and pedestrian gateway were displayed at the meeting. RESOLVED – To note the contents of the report
|
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for detached double garage to side, single storey rear extension and conversion of existing garage to habitable room
(report attached)
Minutes: This application had been withdrawn from the agenda for the previous Panel meeting (minute 52 refers). Plans and photographs of the site were displayed. Members had visited the site prior to the meeting
Officers reported the dwelling lay within the Green Belt and a Special Landscape area. The existing dwelling was a relatively new property having been completed in 2007 and at that time Permitted Development rights had been removed due to the size of the replacement dwelling being 87% above the volume of the original dwelling on the site. That permission had been granted having regard to Policy GB8 which allowed for increases up to 100% within the Greenbelt. That policy no longer existed. Furthermore, recent decisions from the Planning Inspectorate showed their unwillingness to support increases over 50%.
The Panel noted the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and went onto consider the representation made by local ward Councillor A Carter on behalf of the applicant.
(Councillor Leadley withdrew from the meeting)
Councillor Carter highlighted the variety of development/extension styles within the immediate locality, the lack of local objection to this scheme and his own view that the proposals would match the existing dwelling. Additionally he noted officers accepted the proposals in terms of design and materials but acknowledged they did not in terms of Policy.
The Panel, having considered the issue of precedence, were advised that any appellants against future decisions to refuse extensions in the green belt would direct an Inspector to this proposal, should it be allowed.
(Councillor Leadley resumed his seat in the meeting)
Members acknowledged the difficult balance of considerations the scheme presented and considered whether any elements of the scheme were acceptable. Broadly speaking the Panel found the garage proposals acceptable, but were not minded to support that part of the proposal to extend the property at the rear.
The Panel were mindful the site lay within the Green Belt and directed their attention to the guidance on disproportionate additions. Members commented that although the proposals may be appropriate within a suburb, their impact on this dwelling in the Green Belt must not be underestimated regardless of other properties in the streetscene. RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the following reason:
“The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed detached garage and rear extension by virtue of their size, siting and design are disproportionate additions to the host dwelling, (when considered with the new dwelling as constructed), which introduces an element of sprawl to the site, producing development harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area. As no very special circumstances have been demonstrated the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt which contravenes Policies N12, N33 and N37 of the Leeds |unitary development Plan (Review) 2006 and advice within Planning Police Guidance 2 – Green Belts”
|
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for two storey front extension, part three storey, part single storey rear extension with decking area over lower ground floor level
(report attached)
Minutes: Plans and photographs of the site, architects drawings and internal layout plans were displayed the meeting. Slides showing 3D shadow graphics of the course of the sun over Nos. 19 and 21 were displayed to provide a comparison of sun shadow over the existing and proposed dwellings.
Officers highlighted the level changes between Nos. 21, 19 and 17 Henley Close
The Panel heard representation from Mr B Barton, resident of No 21 in objection to the scheme who expressed concern over the size and dominance of the proposals on the existing dwelling and the streetscene, overlooking from his property onto the new build, loss of sunlight and the distances between the dwellings
The Panel then heard from Mr M Scratchard, the agent for the applicant who stated the distances between dwellings were within the guidance contained within Neighbourhoods for Living. He expressed the view that No. 21 currently dominated the application site and that these proposals did not extend beyond the rear wall of No.21.
Members considered the following matters:
RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the specified conditions contained within the report
|
|
(Councillor Leadley withdrew from the meeting at this point)
|
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for laying out of access road and erection of 14 houses, new two storey clubhouse with changing rooms and stand, all weather pitch with floodlighting, 5 grass pitches, car parking and landscaping
(report attached)
Minutes: (Councillor Leadley resumed his seat in the meeting.)
Further to minute 21 of the meeting held 6 August 2009 when Panel received a progress report on the proposals the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report on the application for improvements to the Club and a residential development on the present site. Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting along with architects drawings of the proposed house types and internal layouts.
Officers reported the inclusion of highway improvements to the site access and improved landscaping. It was also reported that Sport England had withdrawn its objection due to the proposed provision of 2 new pitches to be located adjacent to the public open space.
The Panel discussed the terms of the Section 106 Agreement and measures in place to ensure the long term retention of the sports facilities.
The Panel considered the balance of the benefits the proposals would bring to the wider community in terms of improved and long term sports provision whilst noting that the application represented a departure from the housing policies within the Development Plan.
Members welcomed the amended scheme and; being aware of the importance of a sport and recreation facility on this site wished to reiterate that these were the special circumstances to consider the Departure. The Panel would not wish to see incremental residential development on this site if the site fell under the management of another company in the future. RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for final approval subject to notification of the application to the Secretary of State for Department for Communities and Local Government as a Departure, and subject to the specified conditions contained within the submitted report plus the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover - on-site sport and recreation improvements - off-site sport and recreation improvements - management agreement covering public access to and cost of facilities - traffic calming contribution - greenspace contribution
|
|
To consider a position statement by the Chief Planning Officer on an application for demolition of care home and replacement part 3/4/5 storey care home with 39 self-contained flats, care rooms, chapel, lounges, dining area, activity rooms and function room with car parking and landscaping
(report attached)
Minutes: The Chief Planning Officer submitted a progress report on proposals to redevelop the site of St Josephs Care Home with a 3/4/5 storey care home with ancillary parking and amenity space. Officers reported the development would be a significant new building in Horsforth of contemporary design which would provide a contrast with the previous Victorian buildings in this location.
Plans, architects drawings and photographs of the site and its surroundings with the former buildings included were displayed at the meeting.
77 letters of representation had been received generally opposing the development although not the principle of a care home on this site. 5 further letters had been received since the despatch of the agenda although these did not raise any new issues. Additionally, all 3 ward Members had objected to the scheme, along with the Horsforth Civic Society, Horsforth Town Council, Newlay Conservation Area Society, Leeds Civic Trust and Mr P Truswell the local MP.
Officers stated the following matters were still being discussed with the applicant: - Materials - Possible revision to the scale and massing - Consideration of the impact of the roof - Possible reduction in the size of the development on the site due to its impact on the streetscene - Possible reduction in height by one storey to the block facing 8/8a Outwood Lane The contents of a letter dated 25th November 2009 from the applicant were reported to the Panel to consider along with the key issues of scale, design appropriateness and parking.
The Panel commented: - Regret over the demolition of the previous care home buildings. Officers advised the buildings were not listed or within a Conservation Area. The applicant was therefore entitled to demolish the buildings, although it was recognised this had caused some ill-feeling in the locality - Size and scale of the proposed new build within the site and roof heights which Panel regarded as considerable and did not relate well to adjacent buildings and character of area - Style and design of the building which Members felt was too institutionalised and more suited to an urban business park setting - Impact of the size and proposed design on the streetscene and the character of the Conservation Area - Community engagement undertaken
The Chair requested specific items to consider as part of progressing the application and Members commented on the following matters: - maintain stone elements, materials generally acceptable - development appears more like a Hospital than a Home. Whilst recognising modern care requirements considered whether care could be better dealt with within three separate but related buildings on the site rather than one large block. - bland roofline and windows do not provide any relief or interest to the elevations. Variation is the key - needs to reduce in height
(Councillor Taggart joined the meeting at this point)
RESOLVED – That the contents of the position statement and the comments of the Panel be noted
|
|
(Councillor Andrew withdrew from the meeting at this point)
|
|
Core Strategy Preferred Approach PDF 89 KB To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the content of the Core Strategy Preferred Approach and to receive a presentation on this from Officers as part of the consultation process
(report attached)
Minutes: The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and received a presentation on the Core Strategy Preferred Approach for the Authority. Members were informed the Core Strategy would be central to the Local Development Framework (LDF) which would replace the Unitary Development Plan in due course. The Core Strategy was intended to be adopted in 2011 as an overarching plan containing a spatial and land use planning framework for the next 15/20 years but with a much longer-term impact.
The Authority was at the point of consulting on the preferred approach and each of the three Plans Panels was being briefed as part of this process. The two key issues from the Strategy of “Leeds as a Distinctive Place” and “Shaping the Future” were highlighted to the Panel along with details of five themes of the Core Strategy as:
(Councillor Matthews withdrew momentarily from the meeting at this point)
Members commented on the following matters:
RESOLVED - To note the contents of the report and presentation and the comments now made
|
|
Date and Time of Next Meeting To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 17th December 2009 at 1.30 pm Minutes: RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 17th December 2009 at 1.30 pm
|