Agenda and minutes

Due to the reported late arrival of Councillor Taggart, Members were asked to nominate a Chair for the meeting.  A nomination was made on behalf of Councillor J Harper and Members were asked to take a vote.

RESOLVED – That Councillor Harper be elected as Chair for the meeting until Councillor Taggart’s arrival.

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

Councillor Chastney declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7, Application 10/03063/FU – Richmond House School, 168-170 Otley Road, LS16 due to his Membership of the Far Headingley Village Society.  Minute No 71 refers.

Councillor Hardy declared personal interests in Agenda Items 12, Application 11/02847/FU – 21 Lower Wortley Road, Wortley, LS12 and 14, Applications 11/03820/FU, 11/03826/FU and 11/03828/LI – Stonebridge Mills, Stonebridge Lane, Wortley, LS12 due to previous discussions he had been involved with regarding the applications.  Minute Nos 76 and 78 refer.

To receive any apologies for absence

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Taggart who would be arriving late to the meeting.

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 13 October 2011

RESOLVED – That the minutes be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

• Minute 58, Application 11/03274/FU – British Home Stores, Bridge Road, Kirkstall, LS5

Paragraph 2, amend the word Ionic to Iconic.

Bullet point 2, amend rugby fields to read car park.

• Minute 59, Application 11/03503/FU – Adjacent to Emmott House, Town Street, Rawdon, LS19

Final paragraph, final sentence to read as follows:  In response to Members’ comments and questions, it was reported that planning permission had been granted for a new house before the sale of its plot by the owner of Emmott House, and confirmed that the plot was two metres narrower than shown on those plans.  That was the reason for the new house having been erected in its current position.

It was also confirmed that previous planning permission granted for Emmott House had lapsed.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for improvements to access and egress with new parking area to school and playing fields.

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer reminded Members of the application that was deferred at the July meeting following a request for clarification and reassurances that the parking area would be properly managed so as to avert parking in local streets and/or on the A660, and that agreement should be sought on funding for local waiting restrictions.  Further discussions had been held between the applicant, Highways and local residents regarding traffic regulatory matters and the applicant had now agreed to provide a contribution towards a range of TROs incorporating two hour waiting restrictions on the north side of Glen Road and also to ensure that a scheme was implemented to control and monitor access/egress to the site by parents/visitors.  The applicant had also submitted an additional statement setting out the reasoning behind the total number of parking spaces and had agreed that the surface of the car park would be semi permeable as requested by Members.  Members were also asked to note that advice had been obtained from the Highways Officer that it was not practical to create a no-parking clearway on the A660.

Members were shown photographs and plans of the site.

Further issues brought to Members attention included the following:

• A representation had been received from the Chair of Weetwood Residents stating that although they still had concerns, they were more comfortable with the revised application.
• The applicant provided further details on the parking arrangements, there would be 58 spaces in the car park of which 43 would be available to parents for dropping off and collecting children.  There would also be a drop off point for older children who would be supervised by a member of staff.
• Further objections had been received regarding obstructions on Glen Road and the loss of a playing pitch for the car park.
• It was recommended to approve the application.  It was considered that there were net safety benefits in getting more cars off the road whilst children were being dropped off and collected.

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns.  These included the following:

• There had been insufficient analysis of the increase in traffic congestion.
• The application was more in the interests of the school than the local community.
• The loss of greenspace.
• Glen Road was a busy commuter road and this would put increased pressure on the junctions at either end of the road.
• It would cause unacceptable traffic problems for the local community.

The applicants agent addressed the meeting.  He raised the following points:

• The plans had been developed following concerns for the safety of children and disturbance to local residents.
• The plans provided more control for the dropping off of children with a secure off road environment.
• Vision splays would be built into either side of the entrance to improve access and egress.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• The applicant had appointed an independent consultant and traffic engineers were satisfied with the proposals.
• It was felt the proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer and receive a pre-application presentation on the proposals for laying out of access road and erection of 46 dwellings with garages and landscaping.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation

(Report attached)

The pre-application report of the Chief Planning Officer was brought to the Panel due to the history associated with the site, scale of development and the high level of local interest in the proposal.  The site was in phase 2 housing allocation.  The principal of residential development was allowed on appeal in May 2011 when outline planning permission was granted.  Members attention was also brought to the fact that there had been a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings on the site and the reduction of affordable housing in line with current policy.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the site.

The applicant addressed the meeting and highlighted the following issues:

• A number of consultations had been undertaken on the design and layout of the site.
• Building materials were still to be decided upon.  There had been local support for stone buildings.
• Another property on the current site had been purchased and would be demolished as part of the proposals.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• The reduction in the proposed number of properties allowed for more appropriate greenspace at the front of the site and also more landscaping throughout.
• The affordable housing element would consist of two and three bedroomed houses which would be on the Otley Road side of the development.
• It was hoped to get permission in February to allow progress on the site to be started from Spring 2012.
• Members discussed having a site visit.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer for the erection of 30 dwelling houses

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning officer advised that the application had been brought to Panel for determination as it related to a substantial development proposal and although there was outline consent, the house builder had decided to resubmit a fresh application to take advantage of the  current lower affordable housing requirements.

It was reported that the proposals had initially been for 48 houses when the outline planning permission was granted in 2008.  This had now been reduced to 30 houses.  Members were shown photographs and plans of the site and surrounding area. Six letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents and these focussed on loss of amenity and privacy.

Members attention was brought to the photographs and plans of the site in relation to distances between planned and current properties.  It was reported that these fell within design guidelines under Neighbourhoods for Living.  Further issues highlighted included the drainage scheme for waste and surface water and tree protection orders.

An objector to the application addressed the meeting.  The following points were raised:

• The proposals would affect residents at Low Hall as the development would overlook the property.
• Trees that did not belong to the area of land to be developed were earmarked for removal.
• There were concerns regarding the proposed pumping station in terms of noise.
• Concerns regarding the effect on wildlife whilst excavation works were carried out.
• Increased traffic problems.
• Concern that significant consideration had not been given to drainage, there had been previous problems with flooding at the site.

The agent for the applicant addressed the meeting.  The following issues were raised:

• The number of dwellings had been reduced to 30 which gave a better reflection of the housing needs of the area.
• Further consultation had taken place with Officers, Elected Members and local residents.
• Discussions would continue with the owners of Low Hall regarding the removal of trees.
• The proposals were in line with all planning policies and met Leeds City Council design standards.
• Discussions with Yorkshire Water had resolved that the surface drainage plans were the most appropriate for this kind of site.

In response to Members comments and questions further discussion was held regarding the provision of Metrocards, tree removal and drainage.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement within three months of this resolution to ensure the following:

• 15% affordable housing built on site;
• Greenspace contribution of £84,222.96;
• Residential Metrocard scheme for residents of £12,117.60; and
• Subject to further conditions as outlined in the report.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for laying out of access and erection of 87 dwelling houses

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members that the application was brought to the Plans Panel because it related to a substantial development proposal and had been subject to a recent appeal decision following a public inquiry.  Original planning permission granted on appeal was an outline consent which was valid until March 2014 and a revised outline consent was presented to Members at Plans Panel West in October 2011.  The scheme was approved by Members, with a lower Affordable Housing Contribution in line with the Interim Affordable Housing Policy.  The developers had also stated a commitment to commence work on the site before the end of this year and to that end, they now required planning permission proposed under this application.

It was reported that the application sought full planning permission for the erection 87 dwellings with landscaping and public open space.  Access would be from Netherfield Road via two cul-de-sacs.  Members were shown full site plans and photographs of the site.

The following issues were highlighted:

• Access to the site was as proposed when outline consent was given.
• Materials to be used on the site.
• The inclusion of chimneys on the properties.
• Retention of greenspaces.
• 4 new objections had been made regarding the proposals.

An objector to the application addressed the meeting.  Issues highlighted included the following:

• It was hoped that the stone used would be real stone and not re-cast stone.
• It was desired that the chimneys would match those of a neighbouring site.
• Concern regarding extra vehicles and parking.
• Section 106 money to be used on bus shelters would be a waste due to the lack of services.

The applicant’s agent addressed the meeting.  He reported that outline permission was originally granted for 98 dwellings and that this had been subsequently reduced to 87 to provide quality country space.  This had been done following discussion with Council Officers.  Further reference was made to the planning gains that had been included and the two year time limit on the development.

In response to Members questions and comments, the following issues were discussed:

• Suggestions for publc transport enhancement monies.
• Chimneys would be decorative, they had been requested by local Ward Members to protect the character of the area.
• The Affordable Housing would consist of 2 and 3 bedroom units.  There was interest from registered landlords to manage these properties.
• Footpath improvements.

RESOLVED -  That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement within three months from the date of the resolution to ensure the following:

·  15% Affordable Housing built on site with an appropriate mix and location of house sizes and types across the site;

·  Education contribution of £414,451.47;

·  Greenspace contribution of £197,028.12;

·  Bus Shelter improvements of £20,000.00;

·  Off-site highway works contribution towards pedestrian facilities on Oxford Road and Otley Road of £14,700.00;

·  Residential Metro Card scheme for residents of £57,239.94;

·  Public Transport enhancements of £106,662.00;

·  Travel Plan, Travel Plan Coordinator and monitoring fee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application  for 7 illuminated free standing hoardings.

(report attached)

(Councillor Taggart in the Chair)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application which sought advertisement consent for the erection of 7 x 48 poster sheet billboards within Leeds Bradford International Airport’s (LBIA) ownership boundary.  It was considered that the application should be referred to Plans Panel because of its significance, impact on the local area and at the request of local Ward Councillors.  A site visit had been held following the deferral of the application in October.

It was reported that the application was for seven illuminated free standing signs and that these all fell within greenbelt land.  Through discussions had been held with highways and Members were informed that decisions could be taken on each individual board.  Members were shown pictures of how the proposed billboards would appear.

Further to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• No conditions could be made to control what was displayed on the billboards.
• Landscaping
• Road traffic accident history in the area.
• Lighting -  the billboards would be illuminated, but not to levels that would distract road users.

Members discussed each of the sites individually and the applicants agent informed the Panel of discussions with their highways consultant in deciding upon the site for each billboard.  Members then took a vote on each site.

RESOLVED -  That signs 1,2,4,5 and 6 be approved and that Signs 3 and 7 be refused on the grounds of signs location and size likely to lead to the distraction of drivers to the detriment of highway safety.

(Councillor Coulson abstained from the voting on this item).

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer for an application for retrospective change of use of shop (A1 use class) to Hot Food Takeaway (A5 use class).

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a proposal for the retrospective change of the use of shop (A1) to hot food take away (A5).  The proposal sought consent to open until 19:00 hours, seven days a week.  The report had been brought to Panel at the request of a local Ward Member and had been deferred from the October meeting to allow for a site visit.

It was reported that there had been two applications refused on highways grounds back in 1997 and 1998 but these sought opening until 00:30 hours.  Objections had been received from local residents and a Ward Member on highways and parking grounds and also due to a lack of shopping diversity.  A build out had been introduced outside the premises and there was available off street parking so it was felt that highways and parking were not grounds to refuse.  Similarly with respect to the lack of shopping diversity, the area was not protected by a shop restriction policy and therefore this was not felt to be a ground for refusal.

Further objections had been made on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, but as the shop closed at 19:00 hours, this was not considered to be a problem.  A neighbouring premises had also submitted an objection regarding extraction and it was reported that this would form  a condition to the application.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• There was rear access to allow deliveries to the premises.
• Parking and enforcement

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as included in the report  and an additional condition to ensure service deliveries are from the rear of the premises.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer for an application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of retail development (Class A1) with food and drink facilities (Class A3), alterations to access arrangements, car parking and landscaping.

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer reminded Members that a progress report for the retail development by Metric Property Kirkstall for a mixed retail development at the British Home Stores site on Bridge Road was reported to Panel in October.  Members commented on and requested additional information on the following:

• Concerns that there were would be higher volumes of traffic
• Proposed use of a requested footbridge to link the development with the rugby fields on the other side of the River Aire
• Concerns over the reduction in car parking and public transport contribution
• Environmental works along the river boundary and provision of survey on Otters.

Members were shown site plans and photographs of the site along with photographs of the views from Kirkstall Abbey as previously requested.

Reference was made to correspondence that had been received from a local Ward Member regarding further concerns that highways issues had not been properly addressed and the contribution for highways improvements was not enough.

Further to previous concerns and requests for further information, the following issues were reported:

• There was no additional impact on highways that was above the resources as provided by the scheme.
• Funding for Public transport had been increased from £170,000 to £199,000
• Funding for highways had increased from £210,000 to £351,000
• The latest Otter Survey had shown that although there were otters in the area there were no breeding sites – planting could be undertaken to encourage otters.
• Wind modelling – for a 2 storey development, the height was not sufficient to do this.
• Active travel – scheme for pedestrians and cyclists – there were funds to improve the area for cyclists and a footpath over the light railway.
• Impact on listed buildings – the nearest were at least 50 metres away – English Heritage had said there was no impact.
• Climate Change/Sustainability – negotiations were ongoing between Planning and the Developer.
• Job Creation – there was liaison with Employment Leeds regarding job opportunities for local people.

Councillor John Illingworth addressed the meeting.  He raised concerns over traffic congestion and made reference to road traffic accidents that had happened in the area.  The Panel was issued with maps showing locations of accidents that had happened in the surrounding area.  Further issues highlighted included the following:

• Lack of traffic signals
• Climate change issues – low energy buildings and impact of increased carbon emissions from extra traffic
• Section 106 agreement – Councillor Illingworth felt that the Council  should be getting more from this due to the high investment in the site.

The applicants agent addressed the meeting and informed the Panel of the history of the application and future proposals for the development.  Reference was also made to the poor condition of the site when British Home Stores took ownership.  Further issues discussed included car parking and floor space of the proposed development.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement to ensure the following:

• Submission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer which sets out the current position with the following applications:

• Application 11/03820/FU – laying out of access road and erect retail foodstore with service yard, covered and open car parking and landscaping
• Application 11/03826/FU – conversion of listed buildings to form 17 flats
• Application 11/03828/LI – listed building consent for conversion of listed buildings to form 17 flats

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer gave members a position statement on the following three applications at Stonebridge Mills, Stonebridge Lane, Wortley.:

• Laying out of access road and erect retail foodstore with service yard, covered and open car parking and landscaping
• Conversion of listed buildings to form 17 flats
• Listed building consent for refurbishment and demolition of buildings

It was reported that the application had been referred to Plans Panel due to it being a significant development.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the site and the following issues were highlighted:

• The previous application was for a retail development that was only half the size of what was currently proposed.
• It was proposed to demolish more buildings on the site – no extra listed buildings to be demolished.
• Affordable housing – discussions to be held with Housing Associations about management
• Objections had been received from local Ward Councillors and support for and against the plans had been received from local residents.
• The site was allocated for convenience shopping in the UDP
• Highways were in discussion with the developers over the proposals
• Further concerns regarding changes to the original plans included the location of the service yard, the proposed store building being double the original planned height and was nearer to listed buildings.
• Ecology – concern regarding the loss of habitat for wildlife
• The developers had a commitment to job creation for local people.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• A site visit was suggested.
• Significant changes to the original application.
• Retention of heritage and listed buildings.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday, 8 December at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 1.30 p.m.