Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all present to the meeting and invited officers and Members to introduce themselves.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Castle. The Panel welcomed Councillor Fox as her substitute

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 66 refers):

-  Councillor Akhtar declared a personal interest as a member of North West Inner Area Committee

-  Councillor Chastney declared a personal interest as a member of the Far Headingley Village Society which had been consulted on the application and as a member of the North West Inner Area Committee which had received a presentation on previous proposals in 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 which had received a presentation on previous proposals in 2009. He also declared a personal interest as a Governor of Springbank Primary School which he felt could be regarded as a school which could benefit from the use of the former LGHS pitches

-  Councillor Taggart declared personal and prejudicial interests as he had undertaken work for the applicant’s agents, albeit not in Leeds. He stated he would withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item

-  Councillor Hardy stated he had made enquiries of The Grammar School at Leeds regarding possible use of the schools’ Alwoodley based playing pitches by Headingley based primary schools. He had requested the School respond directly to LCC Planning Services, and to date, he was not aware that a response had been received. It was noted that this did not constitute a declaration of interest for the purposes of the Members Register of Interests

-  Councillor Coulson reported that although he was a member of WYITA he had not attended any WYITA meetings where the applications had been discussed and did not have an interest in the matter

Councillor Chastney – Application 10/04111/FU 180 Otley Road – declared a personal interest as he recognised the applicant in the meeting room as being someone who was known to him (minute 71 refers)

Councillor Fox – Application 10/03772/FU Cookridge Lane – declared a personal interest as the applicant had written to him regarding an earlier proposal for development on the same site, although it was noted that no contact had been made regarding the proposals to be considered today (minute 70 refers)

Councillor J Harper Application 10/0324/FU Lyric House – stated that although the report on the application highlighted her support for the comments made by Councillor Lowe, her ward colleague who objected to the scheme, she did not have an interest to declare as she intended to consider the report and the information provided by the planning officer before she made a decision. (minute 68 refers)

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held 7^th October 2010 as a correct record

(Copy attached)

The Panel noted a request to amend minute 48 (declarations of interest) to clarify that Councillor Hardy had made a representation to The Grammar School at Leeds and had asked the School to respond directly to LCC Planning Services rather than himself as suggested in the minute

RESOLVED – That, subject to a appropriate amendment as detailed above, the minutes of the meeting held 7^th October 2010 be agreed as a correct record.

Councillor Taggart, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following agenda item withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision making process

Nominations were sought from the Panel for the position of Chair of the meeting for the following item. Councillor Harper was proposed by Councillor Akhtar and this motion was seconded by Councillor Hardy and supported by the Panel

RESOLVED – Councillor J Harper took the Chair

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals for a residential development on the site of the former Leeds Girls High School, Headingley.

Panel previously deferred determination of this matter from the meeting held 7^th October 2010

(Report attached)

Further to minute 51 of the meeting held 7^th October 2010 when the applications were withdrawn from the agenda due to new issues being raised in applications made by a member of the public to the High Court which sought to prevent a decision being taken, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the planning applications and responding to the matters sought to be raised before the High Court. Subsequently the Court had received notice that the injunction and judicial review had been summarily dismissed

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Officers reported receipt of letters of representation from:

-  Mr G Mulholland MP and Mr H Benn MP

-  Individual letters of objection from Councillors Monaghan; Hamilton; Atha and Illingworth. Officers provided a précis of their contents

-  LCC Health Scrutiny Board

-  A further joint letter of representation from local ward Councillors M Hamilton and Monaghan

-  Further letters from local amenity groups and individuals

Officers highlighted the key issues relating to the scheme to consider as:

Playing Pitches

• Referred to relevant planning policy N6
• Noted the new pitch provision located at The Grammar School At Leeds (GSAL) was open to public use and of superior quality to that at the former Leeds Girls High School (LGHS) site. The LGHS pitches had never been available for public use
• The LGHS pitches had been assessed by LCC Parks & Countryside as unsuitable for various activities. Furthermore LCC did not have resources available for their upkeep
• The Lawn Tennis Association had not responded to a request to comment on residents’ claims that provision  of tennis courts in the locality did not meet LTA recommended standards
• Members should note the proximity and availability of pitches at Woodhouse Moor for community use
• Sport England had withdrawn their objection to the application
• Reported the opinion of Leading Counsel that Policy N6 could not form the basis of a refusal as the two criteria within Policy N6 had clearly been met
• Referred to relevant policy PPG17
• Noted the comment by objectors regarding consultation and responded that paragraph 10 of PPG17 did not give local communities power to veto a development.
• Leading Counsel advised that although that part of PPG17 carried weight, it was not a defensible basis for refusing planning permission

Ford House Gardens

• Reported the circumstances of the withdrawal of the offer of use of Ford House Gardens (FHG) for the community
• At the time FHG was offered as part of the section 106 package, the Panel could lawfully consider that offer as forming part of the application; however the rules governing how legal agreements were taken into consideration in planning applications changed in April 2010; the offer had also formed part of the claim in the High Court challenge referred to above.
• The land needed to satisfy tests of necessity to make the development acceptable in planning terms; to be directly related to the development and fairly; and to be reasonably related in scale and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Panel adjourned for a short while and Councillor J Harper vacated the Chair at this point. Councillor Hardy also withdrew from the meeting. Councillor Taggart resumed his seat as Chair on recommencement of the meeting

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for an extension and detached garage at 1 Spen Gardens, West Park.

 Panel previously deferred determination of this matter from the meeting held 9^th September 20201

(Report attached)

Further to minute 42 of the Panel meeting held on 9^th September 2010 when Panel deferred determination of the application the Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out the applicants’ response to the matters raised by Members.

(Councillor Hardy resumed his seat in the meeting)

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the specified conditions contained in the report

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application to vary Condition No 4 of 09/04364/FU relating to the opening hours for the place of worship located at Lyric House, Tong Road, Farnley

(Report attached)

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Members had visited the site prior to the meeting. Members noted the site lay within the Armley ward, and not Kirkstall ward as indicated on the agenda.

Officers outlined the recent planning history of the premises and the key issues for consideration as being the impact of the longer use on highways and local residents. As such additional conditions were requested to permit a one year temporary permission and to ensure the area to the front of the premises was not used for car parking or as a drop-off/pick up-point

The Panel considered the representations made by Mrs M Ndzinga on behalf of local residents who expressed concern over the length of the proposed opening hours and reported the applicant had previously not complied with the existing hours of use. Mr Ndebele on behalf of the applicant addressed the Panel in response.

Members considered the following matters:

• The reported non-compliance with the existing hours of use and associated incidents of noise nuisance
• Whether it was possible to monitor the hours of use at the premises, although it was noted individual monitoring could not be provided
• The merits of granting a temporary permission for a period less than 12 months,
• Impact of the use on highways and the different problems presented at different times of the day depending on the number of attendees

The Panel noted the officer recommendation to approve the application however were not minded to do so and

RESOLVED – That the application be refused and officers be requested to present a further report to the next Panel meeting setting out proposed reasons to refuse the application based on the Panels’ comments

(Councillors Akhtar and Hardy withdrew from the meeting at this point)

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals to erect one four bedroom dwelling and one six bedroom dwelling on the site of an existing bungalow at 411 Otley Old Road, Cookridge

(Report attached)

Site plans and slides showing street scene elevations were displayed at the meeting. Members had previously visited the site.

(Councillor Akhtar resumed his seat in the meeting)

Officers highlighted the main issues for consideration as being the principle of the development having regard to recent changes to PPS3; overlooking and car parking.

Members discussed the presence of footings laid for outbuildings yet to be completed in the garden and noted the measures within the conditions to ensure their removal. Members however requested the removal of the footings prior to completion of the development of the two new dwellings

(Councillor J Harper withdrew from the meeting at this point)

RESOLVED –

a)  That Application 10/03618/FU be granted subject to the specified conditions contained within the report

b)  That Application 10/03620/FU be granted subject to the specified conditions contained within the report

c)  That Condition No 12 on both permissions be amended to read ”Removal of existing footings and restoration of garden area prior to completion of development”

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for alterations and extensions to create an enlarged shop with enlarged apartment over, and a four bedroom house at 17-19 Cookridge Lane, Cookridge

(Report attached)

Slides showing architects drawings, aerial photographs, photographs of the street scene were displayed at the meeting. Members had previously visited the site.

Officers reported the planning history of the site including the comments of the Planning Inspector on a previously appealed scheme (Application 09/02673/FU). Slides showing the earlier scheme were displayed for reference.

Officers reported receipt of 3 further letters of representation; however these did not raise any new issues and requested a further condition be included to ensure retention of the copper beech hedge for the dwelling house. The Panel noted that the shop unit had at one time been a post office and a rare Edward VIII post box remained within the site boundary. Members requested one further condition to ensure the retention of this feature

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the specified conditions contained within the report and any others deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer plus the two additional conditions relating to:

a)  Retention of the copper beech hedge for the dwelling house

b)  Retention of the Edward VIII post box

(Councillors Coulson and Matthews withdrew from the meeting at this point)

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking permission to widen an access at 180 Otley Road, Headingley

(Report attached)

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Officers highlighted the key issues for consideration as being highway/pedestrian and cycle safety and whether there had been any material changes in planning law since the grant of the application for the new dwelling now on the site. The report set out the planning history of the site and included copies of two appeal decisions from 2007 and 2009 respectively

The Panel heard representation from Mrs Walklin, the applicant, who explained current difficulties of access to the new vacant dwelling on the site and maintained that the direct access point from the A660 was used.

The Panel carefully considered the following:

-  The comments of the Inspectors in their respective appeal decisions

-  Highway safety issues relating to the volume of traffic on the A660 and the likely impact of increased usage of this access point

-  The comments of the highways officer

-  The impact of the reported removal of the applicants’ rights of access to their land via the access road from the Village Hotel on the new dwelling

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

1) The proposal would result in additional turning manoeuvres onto the A660 which is designated as a Primary Route and which carries in excess of 26,000 vehicles per day. It is considered that such manoeuvres could potentially be hazardous and conflict with the safe and free flow of traffic on this heavily trafficked area of the highway network. In addition the servicing requirements of this proposal would be met, at least in part, on street which would be detrimental to the safety of vulnerable road users, especially cyclists, in such a heavily trafficked environment. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies GP5 and T2 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan, with respect to access and highway safety, efficiency, and amenity.

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 2^nd December 2010 at 1.30 pm

RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 2^nd December 2010