moderngov
  • Sign In
  • A to Z
  • Newsroom
  • Contact us
  • Accessibility
  • A- A+

Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Plans Panel (East)
Thursday, 26th January, 2012 1.30 pm

Venue: Civic Hall Leeds

Contact: Angela M Bloor  2474754

Items
No. Item

152.

Chair's opening remarks

Minutes:

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

  The Chair stated that the first item to be discussed would be the pre-application presentation and following this, the order of the agenda would be resumed

 

 

153.

Late Items

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

 

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

Minutes:

  There were no formal late items but Members were in receipt of the following additional information which had been circulated prior to the meeting:

  Pre application presentation – Former Wholesale Market Cross Green LS9 – larger scale versions of the plans circulated with the agenda (minute 155 refers)

 

 

154.

Declarations of Interest

To declare any 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.

Minutes:

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

  Pre-application presentation – Former Wholesale Market Cross Green LS9 – proposals for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility – Councillors Finnigan and Gruen declared personal interests through being members of the Executive Board where issues relating to the proposals had been discussed (minute 155 refers)

  Pre-application presentation – Former Wholesale Market Cross Green LS9 – proposals for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility – Councillor Pryke declared personal interests through being a member of the Aire Valley Leeds Board and the Leeds Initiative Board on Regeneration where issues relating to the proposals had been discussed (minute 155 refers)

  Application 11/0381/FU – 68 houses on land opposite Highcroft and Hillside Selby Road Garforth – Councillor Lyons declared a personal interest through being a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals (minute 161 refers)

 

 

155.

Preapp/10/005200 - Pre-application report - Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility - site of former Wholesale Market Newmarket Approach Cross Green LS9 pdf icon PDF 69 KB

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer and presentation providing details on proposals for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility on the former Wholesale Market at Cross Green LS9

 

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)

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Further to minute 137 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 20th January 2011 where Panel received a presentation from the Environment Agency on the monitoring and permitting regulations associated with Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the anticipated submission of a planning application for such a facility, following the Council’s entering into an agreement in November 2011 with Veolia Environmental Services (VES) concerning the design, construction, funding and operation of a waste management facility

  Officers presented the report and outlined the proposals for a RERF – Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility - which would accept 180,000 tons of residual waste per annum and would have a front-end recycling facility to further increase the amount of recycling the Council achieved annually

  The Panel then received a presentation from representatives of Veolia, the Council’s Preferred Bidder for the development and operation of such a facility which would be located on a brownfield site at Newmarket Approach Cross Green LS9

  Details were provided in respect of:

·  the proposed solution to waste in Leeds

·  the company

·  the site and proposed design of the RERF

·  the local environment

·  planning timetable

·  key issues including traffic and emissions

·  local benefits and community engagement

Members questioned Veolia’s representatives and Officers on a range

of issues and received the following information:

·  that Biffa, which had indicated an interest in providing a EFW facility in this area for commercial waste, had been involved at the early stages of the Council’s procurement process for a waste facility for household waste, however Veolia had reached the point of the Council’s Preferred Bidder after a lengthy and rigorous process.  The Council’s Waste Strategy and Policy Manager who was in attendance stated that due to the threat of escalating landfill costs, a solution to this had to be found and that it was not possible to rely on an application from Biffa which was yet to be submitted, to resolve the problems of dealing with the city’s waste

·  that 16 weeks was the usual timescale to consider an application and frame a recommendation, however it was felt this could take longer, with much depending on the responses from the Statutory Consultees.  The Environmental Permit and the Planning Application would be submitted simultaneously in this case

·  that the heights of the buildings were likely to be 42m for the main facility and 15m for the smaller building.  The main facility would house the stack which was likely to be 75m high.  The majority of the stack would be housed inside the main facility with just 33m of the stack being visible.  In terms of visibility of the smaller building from the nearest residential properties, it was felt that the changes in land levels would mean it unlikely this could be seen

·  that view points and most recent images of the proposals were likely to be available for the next round  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

156.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 108 KB

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5th January 2012

 

(minutes attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5th January 2012 be approved

 

 

157.

Application 08/01118/FU - 5 Wind Turbines, monitoring mast and associated infrastructure at Hook Moor Near Micklefield - Appeal Decision pdf icon PDF 356 KB

Further to minute 103 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16th December 2010 when Members considered a report on the outcome of an appeal against refusal for a wind farm at Hook Moor, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on the outcome of the applicant’s challenge to that decision

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Further to minute 103 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16th December 2010 where Members considered a report on the outcome of an appeal against refusal of a wind farm at Hook Moor, near Micklefield and sited in the Green Belt, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s findings following a successful legal challenge by the applicant to the first appeal decision

  The Panel noted that the most recent appeal had been allowed and that the Inspector had afforded considerable weight to renewable energy proposals, even when sited in the Green Belt and to the Council’s Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the number of wind turbines in neighbouring areas which were no longer functional and that an analysis of this should be done to ascertain the number of turbines still in use

·  recent reports which indicated that wind turbines were not as efficient as first thought and due to the large amounts of concrete which were needed as part of the construction process, were not environmentally friendly

·  the need for the Council to present stronger arguments to the Inspector on these matters

·  the global environmental impact of the manufacturing of wind turbines, particularly in China and the high cost of wind power, issues which should be taken into account when considering future applications for wind turbines

Officers referred to the reasons for refusal of the application which had

been put forward and agreed by Members which along with issues relating to the Green Belt had cited reasons relating to impact on Radar from nearby RAF bases, raised by the Ministry of Defence.  Following discussions between the MoD and the developers, a solution to mitigate against this perceived harm had been found, through the use of a Grampian condition, with Members being informed that within 5 years it would be necessary to discharge condition 6 of the permission which related to mitigation measures

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

 

 

158.

Application 11/01678/FU and 11/01679/ADV - Change of use of part of a market (A1 use) to betting office (A2 use) with shop front alterations - 95a Queen Street Morley - Appeal decision pdf icon PDF 411 KB

Further to minute 40 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 14th July 2011 where Panel resolved to refuse an application for change of use of part of market to betting office and shop front alterations, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged against that refusal

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Further to minute 40 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 14th July 2011 where Panel resolved to refuse an application for change of use of part of Morley Market to a betting office, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant

  The Panel noted that the Inspector had allowed the appeal but that the costs application had been refused

  Concerns were raised at the implications of the Inspector’s decision on Morley Market

  RESOLVED -  To note the report

 

 

159.

Application 11/00235/FU - Retention of mobile home for temporary period on land to the rear of 1-3 Springfield Villas Gildersome Lane LS27 pdf icon PDF 299 KB

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for retention of mobile home for temporary period on land to the rear of 1-3 Springfield Villas LS27

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  (Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Latty left the meeting)

 

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

  Officers presented the report which sought retrospective permission for the retention of a mobile home for an unspecified temporary period on land designated as Green Belt at the rear of 1-3 Springfield Villas Gildersome

  Having considered the application, Officers were recommending to Panel that it be refused, with possible reasons for refusal being included in the submitted report

  The Panel heard representations from Mr Garbutt, the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting

  Questions were put to Mr Garbutt regarding the very special circumstances provided in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt; alternative sites in the area and the reasons for the applicant moving from his previous site

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

 

1  The site lies within an area defined as Green Belt and the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed new dwelling constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt following the advice of Planning Policy Guidance Note No 2(PPG2) the draft NPPF and Policy N33 of the Unitary Development Plan and would undermine the purpose and function of the Green Belt.   The applicant has also failed to demonstrate any very special circumstances which could allow a departure from this adopted policy guidance.   It therefore, is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies N33 and H16 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the guidance contained within PPG2

 

2  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed dwelling due to its size and siting would have a harmful impact on the openness of this Green Belt location, whilst also having a harmful impact on the visual amenity and rural character of this locality due to the design and facing materials proposed.   It is therefore, considered that the proposal is contrary to the national planning policy guidance of PPG2 and Policies GP5, H16 and N13 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006)

 

 

160.

Application 11/04490/FU -Demolition of side extension and single storey front extension to bungalow and erection of 2 three bedroom bungalows - Halcyon, Parkway Gildersome LS27 pdf icon PDF 391 KB

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for demolition of side extension and single storey front extension to bungalow and erection of 2 three bedroom bungalows

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

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

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report which sought permission for demolition of extensions to existing bungalow and the erection of 2 three bedroom bungalows at Parkway, Gildersome LS27

  In terms of amenity space and separation distances, the application complied with guidelines set out in PPS3.  However in the distances set out in the Street Design Guide which cited a width of 3.3m for a private driveway, this could not be achieved for the full length of one of the proposed bungalows.  Members were asked to consider whether this constituted overdevelopment on this site.  If minded to approve the application, further conditions relating to ground levels and finished floor levels and the pegging out of the position of the proposed bungalows for approval were suggested

  Receipt of a further letter of representation was reported

  The Panel heard from the applicant’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting

  Members considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report; additional conditions requiring the submission of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels and the position of the proposed bungalows to be pegged out for inspection of the LPA prior to commencement and subject to further negotiations between Officers and both parties and in the event of agreement not being reached regarding the siting of the bungalows, that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report for determination of the application by Panel

 

 

161.

Application 11/03814/FU - 68 houses on land opposite Highcroft and Hillside Selby Road Garforth LS25 pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Further to minute 112 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 3rd November 2011 where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a residential development comprising 69 houses, to consider the formal, revised application for 68 houses

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Further to minute 112 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 3rd November 2011 where Panel considered a position statement for a residential development of 69 houses on land opposite Highcroft and Hillside, Selby Road Garforth LS25, Members considered the formal application which had been revised to now comprise 68 houses

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and outlined further amendments to the scheme which included:

·  a change to the affordable housing types and that whilst not being pepper-potted around the site for technical reasons relating to land levels, these would be in a more central location than previously proposed

·  provision of an access strip to enable Nos 11 and 20 Cliffe House Avenue to maintain their existing hedges

·  3 storey properties to be located only off central spine road

·  Improvements to green space and the enlargement of garden areas

·  amount of render in the scheme reduced

In respect of affordable housing, 15% would be provided in line with the

interim policy

  Increased education contributions which now included provision for primary education would be provided.  To take account of the reduced number of houses proposed, Members were informed that the green space contribution would be decreased slightly, with £97,157.76 being provided

  Members were informed that Yorkshire Water was working on a flood alleviation scheme for the area and that the developer had agreed to make a contribution of £450,000 towards that

  Officers reported the receipt of five additional letters of representation and corrected minor errors in the submitted report.  If minded to approve the application, further conditions were suggested relating to drainage, including off-site works and obscure glazing where appropriate to bathroom/landing windows to gable ends

  Members were informed that site preparation works had recently commenced on site and that a written apology had been sent to the LPA for this error

  It was confirmed that Ward Members had been consulted on the scheme in detail following the presentation to Panel on 3rd November 2011 and that the proposed draft S106 Agreement would be discussed with them prior to it being signed off

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the possibility of negotiating an increase to the level of affordable housing to be provided

·  flooding issues; the need for a Flood Risk Management Officerto attend Panel when issues relating to flooding were being discussed and the role of Yorkshire Water in this matter in view of the Environment Agency being the monitoring authority

·  the level of public consultation on the proposals with concerns this could have been more extensive and included flooding issues in view of previous difficulties experienced around the Ninelands area of Garforth

·  the need for the affordable housing on site to meet the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) minimum standards in view of a recent Scrutiny Inquiry which had revealed that some affordable homes in the city had not been built  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

162.

Application 11/00460/LA - Retrospective application for floodlighting and CCTV camera to car park - Community Youth Centre Middleton Road Belle Isle LS10 pdf icon PDF 387 KB

Further to minute 145 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5th January 2012 where Panel deferred determination of a retrospective application for floodlighting and a CCTV camera to the Youth Hub at Middleton Road Belle Isle LS10 to enable a site visit to take place, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Further to minute 145 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5th January where Panel resolved to defer determination of a retrospective application for floodlights and CCTV camera at the Youth Hub at Middleton Road Belle Isle LS10 for a site visit, Members considered a further report

  Plans were displayed at the meeting.  As requested, a site visit had taken place earlier that day which some Members had attended along with Officers, including the Council’s Lighting Engineer

  Officers presented the report and stated that a representative of Children’s Services – the applicant – had agreed to the removal of the three lighting columns which had been switched off, if requested to do so by Panel

  Whilst at the 5th January meeting, Members had requested all of the floodlights to be switched off until the application had been determined, the Centre Manager had declined to do so in the interests of health and safety.  If minded to approve the application, the lights could be turned off 15 minutes earlier than currently – at 21.30

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the costs of removing the 3 lighting columns and whether ensuring these were permanently switched off might be more appropriate

·  the view of some residents that greater problems of light pollution were being experienced from the lights on the building, but that this was an issue outside of the application before Panel

·  that the situation should be monitored

·  that the switch off time for the lights should remain at 21.45

RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions

set out in the submitted report with the exception of condition 4 (removal of redundant lighting columns) which Panel resolved was not necessary

 

 

163.

Date and time of next meeting

Thursday 23rd February 2012 at 1.30pm

 

 

Minutes:

  Thursday 23rd February 2012 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall Leeds