Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves for the benefit of the members of the public who were attending the meeting

To identify items which may have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)

  There were no formal late items, however Members were in receipt of the following information to be considered at the meeting:

  Applications 08/04214/OT/08/04216/FU/08/04217/CA/08/04219/FU and 08/04220/LI – Residential development at Leeds Girls High School Headingley Lane LS6 – a plan showing visibility splays which had been requested by Members on the site visit which had taken place earlier in the day (minute 25 refers)

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

The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct:

Leeds Girls High School applications (minute 25 refers):

Councillor Taggart declared personal and prejudicial interests through having undertaken work for the applicant’s agents, albeit not in Leeds

  Councillor Castle declared personal interests through being a member of Leeds Civic Trust which had commented on the proposals and also through having been educated at the school, as had Councillor Castle’s daughter

  Councillor Chastney declared personal interests through being a member of the Far Headingley Village Society which had been consulted on the application and as a member of North West Inner Area Committee when previous proposals were presented to Panel in October 2009

  Councillor Matthews declared personal interests through being a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals and as a member of North West Inner Area Committee when previous proposals were presented to Panel in October 2009

  Application 09/00856/FU – Former Glassworks Cardigan Road LS6 – Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals (minute 28 refers)

    Application 10/02221/LA – Mistress Lane Armley LS12 – Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals (minute 29 refers)

  Application 10/02221/LA – Mistress Lane Armley LS12 – Councillors Coulson and Harper declared personal interests as members of West Leeds Gateway (WLG) as the site was within the area covered by the WLG Area Action Plan (minute 29 refers)

  Application 10/02227/LA – Haworth Court Chapel Lane LS19 – Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals (minute 30 refers)

  (further declarations of interest were made later in the meeting – minutes 25 and 27 refer)

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held 15^th July 2010 as a correct record

(Copy attached)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the last meeting held 15^th July 2010 be agreed as a correct record

  (Having declared personal and prejudicial interests, Councillor Taggart withdrew from the meeting) 

Councillor Janet Harper was nominated to chair the following item, in Councillor Taggart’s absence

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on applications for the residential redevelopment proposals comprising flats and terraced houses at the former Leeds Girl High School, Headingley Lane, Headingley

(Report attached)

  Councillor Janet Harper in the Chair

  Further to minute 37 of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 1^st October 2009 when Panel considered a position statement on proposals for the redevelopment of the former Leeds Girls High School site, Headingley Lane LS6, Members considered the formal applications.  Appended to the report was a copy of the report considered by Panel at the meeting in October 2009

The Chair stated that due to the level of interest in the application and the number of representations which had been received on the proposals, it had been decided on this occasion to vary the speaking protocol to allow three objectors to address the Panel, with the applicant’s agents having the equivalent amount of time to put forward their case to Members

Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which Members had attended

Officers presented the report which related to 5 applications, these being:

·  an outline application for residential development of 51 houses and 15 flats

·  a full planning application for change of use and extension of the main school building and stable block to form 32 flats and 4 terrace houses

·  change of use application for the listed Rose Court building to form 12 flats

·  listed building application for Rose Court

·  Conservation Area application for demolition works

Minor revisions to the scheme had been undertaken which resulted in 4

fewer dwellings being proposed and an increase in the number of car parking spaces; these being 2 spaces per family dwelling and 1 space per flat.  Disabled parking provision would also be included.  With the 1 dwelling in Rose Court Lodge and 2 dwellings within the existing North West Lodge, a total of 117 dwellings were now proposed on the site

Members were informed that the main planning issues related to the

principle of housing development/ loss of protected playing pitches; design issues and impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Headingley Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building; highways issues; residential amenity issues and developer contributions

  In terms of the principle of housing development, planning guidance required LPAs to encourage residential development in sustainable locations, with Officers stating that the site was in a highly sustainable location with good public transport links.  The vacant buildings required a new use and given the location of the site and nature of the area in which it was sited, residential use which would deliver family housing in the Area of Housing Mix was considered to be appropriate

  The scheme would bring back into use the listed Rose Court, would preserve the most attractive elements of the 1905 main school building and provide public open space to land which had not previously been publicly accessible

  Relating to the loss of protected playing pitches, Officers stated that the facilities which would be lost were two sets of tennis courts, one set which had been in regular use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application setting out proposed alterations to a garage to form a store above at 11 Horton Rise, Rodley

(Report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission to raise the height of the existing garage at 11 Horton Rise Rodley LS13 by 1.2m and include four rooflights

  Members were informed that there were a mix of house types in the street scene and because of this, Officers considered that the proposals would be acceptable in this area

  The Chair informed the Panel that as a Ward Member for the Bramley area this matter was sought to be raised at one of his surgeries.  However before any explanation of the proposals could be made, Councillor Taggart had stated that he could not be involved through being the Chair of the Panel which would consider the application

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking to extend the time limit on an existing permission (Application 26/564/04/FU) for the development of flats at Escher House, Headingley

(Report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Chastney withdrew from the meeting having declared personal and prejudicial interests through knowing one of the objectors who had registered to address the Panel)

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought an extension of time for a previously approved application 26/564/04/FU for the change of use of 116 Cardigan Road from offices to flats

  Members were informed that for applications seeking an extension of time, only material planning changes could be considered

  The main changes in planning circumstances were set out in the submitted report.   Members were informed that the building was well screened and the flats would be barely visible from the streetscene

  A Section 106 Legal Agreement would prevent occupation of the flats by students.  An off-site greenspace contribution was also being requested and although this had been queried by the applicant, the Officer’s recommendation for approval was on the basis that this sum would be provided and in the absence of this contribution, permission would be refused

  As there had been no significant change in planning circumstances since the previous approval, Officers were recommending the application for approval

  The Panel heard representations from two objectors who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  how the restriction on use of the accommodation by students could be enforced in view of the difficulties which had been experienced in enforcing such a condition at a nearby property

·  the lack of provision for visitor car parking

·  that the lack of car parking within the scheme would lead to on-street parking in surrounding streets as Cardigan Road could not be used due to the heavy traffic levels which already occurred there

·  that the carbon footprint of developments should be taken into account

·  that the flats were sited in an area with good public transport links

The Head of Planning Services stated that the S106 Agreement

relating to the restriction of use of the accommodation by students was

the means by which the High Court could enforce this and that it was stronger than a planning condition.  Whilst the situation was likely to be strengthened through the Core Strategy, at the moment a legal agreement was the strongest mechanism which could be used

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (plus any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a legal agreement within 3 months following Panel, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligations:

·  off-site greenspace contribution - £32,324.13

·  flats will not be occupied by students

(Following consideration of the application, Councillor Chastney resumed his seat in the meeting)

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals to develop student accommodation at the former Glassworks site, Headingley.

(Report attached)

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which related to a student housing development on the site comprising 65 student cluster flats with 154 bed spaces at the former Glassworks, Cardigan Road Headingley LS6

  Members were informed that a previous student housing development on the site for 256 bed spaces had been refused by Panel at its meeting on 21^st February 2008, against the Officer’s recommendation (minute 187 refers).  An appeal which had been lodged following refusal of that application had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector

  An extant permission for a residential scheme for 86 flats on the site remained until March 2012.  Members were informed that the total number of bed spaces for that development was 140.  As that permission was not restricted by condition in terms of occupancy, it was the applicant’s view that this was a legitimate fall-back position, ie that the development could be built and then let to students.  Officers stated that they had concerns about how real the fall-back position was as there were doubts as to the viability of the approved scheme and so it should be accorded limited weight.  If Panel accepted the fall-back case put by the applicant then it would need to consider the difference in the current application, ie 34 bed spaces

  The scheme before Panel had been designed to mirror the approved scheme although it would include additional amenity space as less parking was proposed as the scheme was for student use

  Officers were of the view that the presence of 154 students on the site would have a detrimental impact on the area and a reason for refusal of the application relating to this was included in the submitted report, for Members’ consideration

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that reference to the Kirkstall Ward should have been included in the report

·  policy H15 and the need to ensure there was an appropriate housing mix

·  the size of the development and the intention for additional student housing to be built in an area which could not accommodate further students

RESOLVED-  That the application be refused for the following reason:

The Local Planning Authority considers that this proposed student development will be detrimental to the housing mix in this locality and given the designation of this site within the defined Area of Housing Mix that the proposal would be detrimental to the balance and sustainability of the local community and to the living conditions of people in the area, contrary to the main thrust of Policy H15 of the Unitary Development Plan and national guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3 aimed at developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and social cohesion

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential proposals for land off Mistress Lane, Armley

(Report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought outline permission for a PFI residential development with additional care options for people aged 55 and over on a gateway site into Armley on Mistress Lane LS12

  Whilst the outline application sought approval of the means of access only, further details of the proposals were provided, for Members’ information, these being:

·  three blocks of accommodation, two blocks being 3 storeys in height and one 6 storey block

·   car parking, including some undercroft parking

·  enhanced greenspace

·  sustainable development with a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rating required to be achieved

Members were informed that 40 additional car parking spaces were

required for residents of the adjacent tower blocks which would be retained

  Officers were reminded of the need to consult with Ward Members on the design of the proposals and to ensure that sufficient on-site car parking was provided

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (and any other conditions/direction that are deemed appropriate)

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the development of a residential institution (C2) at Haworth Court, Yeadon

(Report attached)

  Further to minute 29, above, the Panel considered a similar scheme at Haworth Court, Yeadon LS19

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that the proposals were for a PFI scheme providing residential accommodation with additional care facilities for people aged 55 and over

  Currently there was a sheltered housing complex of 45 units on the site which would be demolished, with a similar sized development replacing this, comprising a 60:40 mix of 2 bed and 1 bed flats

  To enable the existing residents to be rehoused, a 4 year permission was being sought for the outline application

  Members welcomed the proposals and commented on the following matters:

·  the need for the scheme to be well designed

·  why the minimum age limit was 55 and whether in the case of couples, whether just one partner needed to be 55 or above.  Officers advised that this was part of a PFI which was geared towards providing housing for older people and the criteria for the funding was based upon the minimum age of residents being 55.  In terms of couples, provided that one person fell within the age requirement, it would be possible for a younger partner to qualify for the accommodation

The Head of Planning Services stated the need to ensure consistency of conditions between this scheme and the one at Mistress Lane LS12

  RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (and any other conditions/direction that are deemed appropriate)

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking to extend the time limit for permission to develop 9 retail and 3 food&drink units at the British Home Stores site, Kirkstall

(Report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought an extension of time for an application which was allowed on appeal for 12 units 9 (A1) use and 3 (A3-5) units at the British Home Store site at Bridge Road Kirkstall LS5

  Members were informed that as the proposal was unchanged the Panel could only have regard to any changes in material planning circumstances which had taken place since the appeal decision in 2008

  Officers stated that:

·  PPS4 had been published since the appeal decision which encouraged vitality and viability of town centres and promoted new economic growth.  It was the view of Officers that the application complied with PPS4.

·  that changes to the local highway network had been addressed in an updated transport assessment and that only some minor additional off-site highway works would be necessary, which the highway authority were considering

·  the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was now in force and that it was considered that the Section 106 agreements complied with the CIL regulations and the three legal tests

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate for Section 106 Agreement, the

submission and monitoring of a Travel Plan, funding for off site landscape works, funding for the improvement of public transport and/or public transport infrastructure and subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the development of 6 houses to the former Britannia Bowling Club site, Pudsey

(Report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking outline approval for the erection of 6 houses to a vacant site at the former Britannia Bowling Club Intake Road Pudsey LS28

  Officers presented the report and stated that as the proposals involved the redevelopment of part of a protected playing pitch, this had to be considered against Policy N6 and in this respect Officers were of the view that exception i) of this policy applied as there would be a net gain to overall quality and provision of pitches resulting from the development

  Members were informed there was no identified shortfall of facilities in the local area and that if the application was agreed, funds would be generated for improved bowling facilities at Pudsey Park and improved cricket facilities at Pudsey Congs Cricket Club ground

  If minded to approve the application a further condition was suggested to address possible noise nuisance

  Panel discussed the application and was informed that whilst much effort had been made to retain the bowling club, the site was currently experiencing anti-social behaviour with regular police patrols being needed and that the benefits of the funding for improved sports facilities would be invaluable to the local community

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report; an additional condition requiring the submission of a noise assessment and details of any mitigation measures being provided at the Reserved Matters stage (and any others he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligations:

1  commuted sum of £21,312 for improvements to Pudsey Park Bowling Green

2  reinvestment of receipt from the sale of the site (less fees and above commuted sum) into improvement of facilities at Pudsey Congs Cricket Club ground

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 9^th September 2010 at 1.30 pm

  Thursday 9^th September 2010 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds