Agenda and minutes

  The Chair wished everyone a Happy New Year, welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

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

  No interests were declared

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 9^th December 2010

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 9^th December 2010 be approved

  The Head of Planning Services informed Members that Phil Crabtree was soon expected to be discharged from hospital.  He was appreciative of the best wishes he had received since his admission into hospital in early December.  In terms of his return to work, Members were informed that this may be April at the earliest

Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 11^th October 2007, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for an extension of time for planning application 07/04987/FU – multi-level development up to 13 storeys comprising 147 flats and gymnasium with surface and covered car parking

(report attached)

  Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 11^th October 2007 where Panel approved in principle a residential development with gym and car parking on the former Bellows Engineering site, East Street LS9, Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking an extension of time for the development

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

  Officers presented the report and informed Members that as the principle of development had been agreed in 2007, this application was being considered against any changes of policy which had occurred since the original planning permission had been granted

  Officers referred to concerns raised by local residents in respect of security; landscaping and car parking and that the developer had been in discussions with residents to try to address their concerns

  It had been recognised that there were parking problems in the area and Members were informed that these would be addressed in the S106 Agreement

  Members were informed that the developer was seeking a 5 year permission instead of the usual 3 years, in view of the current economic situation

  Officers were of the view that the application complied with current policies and were recommending approval of the application

  The Panel heard representations from the developer’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting.  The developer who was in attendance was asked by the Chair to respond to matters of fact raised by the Panel

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  that details of the travel plan were needed

·  the proposed car parking arrangements and whether this could worsen the current parking situation

·  that the site which was currently blocked off with hoardings was unattractive and the intention for it to remain in a poor state for up to 4-5 years was unacceptable, particularly from a major developer

·  that the introduction of planting and a recent coat of paint to the hoardings was not sufficient and no controls existed to secure the on-going maintenance of this screening

·  that there was a pragmatic denial of greenspace for residents of the developments which had been completed

·  that an extra condition could be included requiring improvements to the site if a 5 year permission was sought

·  that the site should be opened up; an appropriate see-through fence erected for safety and the area should be grassed over

·  that the footpath by St Saviour’s Church should be opened up

·  clarification on what issues Panel could consider in view of the application being for an extension of time of a previous planning permission

Officers provided the following responses

·  that a revised travel plan had been submitted and that an evaluation and monitoring fee would be required.  The travel plan covered the existing conditions on site and objectives for a range of travel methods and car club usage.  It identified a travel plan co-ordinator and targets to identify more sustainable forms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for alterations and addition of new fourth and fifth floors to offices

(report attached)

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

Officers presented the report and showed previous proposals for the site which was situated in close proximity to the city centre conservation area and for other sites in the immediate vicinity.  These included a scheme which had been granted on appeal further to the south and the most recent, unimplemented permission for the site which would have seen the demolition of the existing building

The current proposals saw the retention of the existing offices which were built in 1983 with the provision of two extra floors of accommodation in a modern design which would be constructed in metal and glazing with curved ends providing a lozenge form; a glazed vertical panel would extend from the ground floor to the new fifth floor.  A condition requiring a large sample panel of facing and surfacing materials was to be included

Car parking for 16 cars, including one disabled parking space would be provided together with motorbike and cycle parking.  An electric car charging point would also be provided

An area of land to the side of the building which was currently unkempt and littered would be replaced by high quality landscaping and the provision of new trees

Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the proposals did not relate to any buildings in the area and that the architectural thinking behind the scheme could not be understood

·  that the proposals were overdominant; the design was inappropriate and too brutal in this location

·  that the design of the extension improved the building and created a sense of moving forward historically

·  concerns about the overhang of the extension on one side of the building and that the ends of the extension were curved

·  the possibility of viewing any of the other solutions considered by Officers

·  the number of ‘To Let’ boards which dominated that area; that these masked many of the interesting buildings and that A3 boards sited flush to the building should be considered as this approach had worked in Headingley.  The Chair asked that this be referred to the appropriate officers within the Council for consideration

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that there had always been an intention for two additional storeys on the building and that pre-application discussions had taken place on the form these should take.  A hand-out showing a range of options considered at the pre-application stage was circulated for Members’ information

·  the Council’s Architect and Urban Designer, Mr Varley, accepted that the design of the extension was eccentric but that it would not work if the ends were squared off and were aligned with the edge of the building

Panel considered how to proceed.  The Head of Planning Services

referred to the previous scheme which had been accepted on this site, noting that this had been for a larger scheme and the previous appeal allowed for a modern intervention on Queen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

10th February 2011 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 10^th February 2011 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall Leeds