Agenda and minutes

  Councillor Taggart welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced that following a recent hospital visit, he had been told that the operation he had undergone in the summer had been successful and that further treatment was not necessary.  This news was met with a round of applause

  The Chair referred to the additional site visit which had been made earlier in the day to view the College of Art site at Blenheim Walk in light of matters raised at the meeting on 17^th October 2013 regarding the NGT and stated that one of the first items to be discussed would be issues arising out of the visit

  The Chair also informed Members of the need for an additional City Plans Panel meeting in early December to consider the proposals for the East Leeds Extension.  Several options were discussed, with the Chair favouring Tuesday 10^th December.  It was pointed out that there was an East Outer Area Committee on that day at 4.00pm, which involved several Members from the Panel.  The Chair noted this and stated that every effort would be made to ensure the additional Plans Panel meeting ended before that time

  Although there were no formal late items, the Panel was in receipt of a late letter of representation on behalf of the applicants of the proposals for an Energy Recovery Waste Facility at Bridgwater Road.  A copy of this letter had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting (minute 94 refers)

  A revised site visit letter had also been circulated which had included the additional visit to the College of Art

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

  There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, however the following matters were brought to the attention of the Panel:

  Councillor J Lewis and Councillor J Procter brought to the Panel’s attention their membership of the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, in view of the discussions which would take place on the NGT proposals in respect of its impact on the College of Art.  Both Members advised that they would take no part in any discussions on this matter (minute 87 refers)

  Councillor Ingham brought to the Panel’s attention that the position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility at Bridgewater Road was sited in her ward (minute 94 refers)

  Councillor Leadley brought to the Panel’s attention that he was the Chair of the Morley Town Council Planning Committee which had objected to the proposals for an extension to the Cottingley Springs site, being considered as a position statement (minute 97 refers).  On this same matter, Councillor Leadley also advised that he was the Chair of the Lee Fair Committee which ran the largest and oldest gypsy and traveller horse fair in Yorkshire

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Cummins; Councillor P Gruen and Councillor R Procter.  The Chair welcomed Councillor J McKenna; Councillor C Macniven and Councillor J Procter who were substituting for their respective colleagues

  The Chair referred to the visit Members had made earlier in the day to the College of Art to view the site in order to better understand the NGT proposals which required an area of land from the College

  Members had considered the proposed changes to the road junction which would affect the premises; had considered the extent of the proposed land take and the impact of the proposals on the side entrance of the College which operated as a fire exit

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the proposal to remove the trees and replace with a wall was not acceptable

·  that the trees marked for removal could be retained

·  that the loss of the pavement at the front entrance was not acceptable; that emergency access arrangements had to be preserved; that an adequate footpath width was required and that the proposals for the junction should be reconsidered

·  that St Mark’s Road was wide at the junction and whether this junction could be reconfigured to better accommodate the proposals

·  that this issue had not been flagged up to Members in the workshops on the NGT

RESOLVED -  To note the comments now made and that a progress

report on this matter be submitted to the next City Plans Panel meeting

To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meetings held on 19^th September 2013 and 26^th September 2013

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meetings held on 19^th September 2013; 26^th September 2013 at 1.15pm and 26^th September 2013 at 1.30pm be approved

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for 3 office buildings, multi-storey car park and pavilion unit, with ground floor food, drink and gym uses and public realm

(report attached)

  Further to minute 126 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 9^th May 2013, where Panel received a pre-application presentation on proposals for a mixed-use development at Whitehall Riverside, Members considered the formal application

  Plans, photographs, graphics and precedent images were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report

  There was widespread support for the scheme which was considered to relate well with existing and proposed buildings at the site.  Officers agreed to consult with Councillor Nash on the proposed tree species at Reserved Matters stage

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the specified conditions (and any others which he might consider appropriate), and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters:

·  Public transport contribution to be paid prior to occupation of each office building – maximum total sum £298,208 (index linked)

·  Bus stop contribution £20,000 to be provided in second phase of off-site highways works (index linked)

·  Car club spaces to be provided in the multi-storey car park from its opening to the public, and car club trial provision to be phased prior to occupation of each office building – maximum total sum £21,000 (index linked)

·  Public access around the site to be provided prior to the occupation of each phase in accordance with the phasing plan

·  Travel plan implementation and monitoring fee to be phased prior to occupation of each office building – maximum total sum £14,825 (index linked)

·  Car park management plan to control short stay parking use of the car park including hours of opening, maximum stay and charging arrangements

·  Employment and training opportunities for local people in City and Hunslet or any adjoining ward

·  Management fee payable within one month of commencement of development - £2250

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a Reserved Matters application for two six storey office blocks with lower ground car parking and associated landscaping

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented a report seeking approval for Reserved Matters for two buildings which would form part of the Wellington Place development

  Members were informed that although outline consent had been granted for buildings up to 11 storeys, a reduced scale was being proposed at 7 storeys fronting Whitehall Road, sloping down to the north to 5/6 storeys.  A smaller scale building was currently being constructed on plot no. 10, and it was felt that the reduction in scale related better to the historic lifting tower on the site

  In terms of landscaping, high quality permanent landscape was being provided, with good quality temporary landscaping being provided until a time when that area came forward for development

  The Design Team Leader stated that Members had played an important role in securing a series of elegant buildings for the site

  Members were pleased with the Reserved Matters proposals, as presented

  RESOLVED – To approve the application in principle and to defer and delegate the final decision to the Chief Planning Officer, subject to variation of the existing S106 agreement to bring forward payments and make an additional payment of up to £270,000 by the applicant to assist in the provision of the Whitehall Road/Northern Street junction improvements to provide pedestrian crossing facilities and to commit to submitting new reserved matters applications to reduce the height of the development across the whole site to accord with the current proposals

Further to minute 125 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 9^th May 2013, where Panel considered a pre-application presentation on proposals for flood defences along the River Aire, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking determination of applications for linear flood defences along the River Aire and removal of Knostrop Cut and Listed Building Application for alterations to listed buildings to provided flood defences along the River Aire

(report attached)

  Further to minute 125 of the City Plans Panel held on 9^th May 2013, where Panel considered a pre-application presentation on proposals for flood defences along the River Aire, to consider the formal applications

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place on 22^nd October 2013, which had included a river trip to enable Panel to better understand the proposals

  Officers presented the report and outlined the location of the defences and the different types proposed

  Regarding Knostrop Cut, Members were informed that 600m of this would be removed, with the spoil being reused.  The Trans Pennine Trail would also require relocating at this point and that discussions on this would continue with all parties

  A late representation from the Canal and Rivers Trust was reported but it was stated that this raised no new issues.  A late representation from the owners of the site to the north of Hol Beck was also reported seeking further details about the necessary access works to the raised footbridge locations and for this to be agreed with the Highways Authority.  The Deputy Area Planning Manager advised that initial design work had shown that disabled access ramps could be accommodated within Water Lane to provide access to the footbridge connections without preventing two-way traffic movements along Water Lane.  Further dialogue would continue with the adjacent land owner and the Highways Authority on this matter.  However the footbridge connections and associated highway works would be delivered with the adjacent development proposals and not by the Flood Alleviation Scheme

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the need to involve Ward Members in discussions on the relocation of the Transpennine Trail and on any further amendments to the scheme as presented

·  whether the proposals would affect the current route of the Transpennine Trail under Aberford Road

·  complaints by local residents of noise from the new weirs which have been installed

·  whether by removing part of Knostrop Cut, this could affect the navigation of the river

·  the durability of the glass panels being proposed in the city centre and the maintenance of them

·  whether dredging could take place to increase river capacity

·  the usefulness of the boat trip and the need to consult with boat users on any future proposals, in view of their local knowledge and expertise

·  the spoil from Knostrop Cut; the possibility of removing this by boat and that it could be used for grass banking at Woodlesford

·  the impact of the scheme on flooding further down towards the Kippax and Methley Ward and beyond, to Castleford

·  the length of time taken for a scheme to come forward and that the applicants should be congratulated on designing a scheme which minimised the impact of the defences on properties

·  the wall adjacent to Hol Beck and whether some of the history and heritage could be reflected in the design of this

·  the need for an adequate maintenance regime to ensure that Hol Beck did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for use of site as new park and ride facility

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for a park and ride facility on land at D car park, Elland Road, with the Council being the applicant

  Members were informed that the site was currently used for match day parking only and that the proposals were for a park and ride site comprising approximately 424 car parking spaces to be formally laid out, which would include some disabled parking spaces.  An overspill area would also be made good for over 300 spaces.  Bus shelters, ticket machines and portacabins for staff would also be provided 

A bus service of 15 minute frequency would operate which would run into the City Centre via Elland Road to Boar Lane and would return via the M621

  The park and ride facility would operate Monday – Saturday, although the facility would not operate on Saturdays when there was a home match

  Concerns about the impact of the proposals had been received from Ward Members and local residents

  Officers considered that the scheme would not increase the amount of traffic and would result in traffic being diverted from the local residential areas.  In terms of air pollution, it was acknowledged there was an existing problem in the area but by removing traffic from hotspots, this could improve the levels of air pollution

  The receipt of a representation from Eurocabs Hackney Carriage Association was reported, which included a request for taxi provision in the scheme.  Members were informed that whilst this could be accommodated it would not be in the spirit of the proposals but that if it was to be included, further consultation and a fresh planning application would be required

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the special buses which operated to take fans from the City Centre to Elland Road and whether these would use the proposed facilities

·  the proximity of Elland Road to the City Centre, in view of most park and rides sites being located a significant distance from a town or city centre

·  the proposed frequency of the park and ride buses in view of the existing bus services which ran along Elland Road at a frequency of approximately 6 minutes at peak time

·  the number of stops en route into the City Centre

·  the extent of the survey work which had been undertaken to consider suitable sites

·  whether there would be provision for cyclists

·  the impact of the proposals on the popular Valentine Fair and the loss of some land to a recently approved application for an Ice Rink

·  concerns about the speed in drawing up the proposals to secure the facility and the lack of important detail such as the quality of the landscaping to be provided and how people would be attracted to use the park and ride

·  the use of portacabins and that if the site did become a permanent park and ride that portacabins would not be appropriate

·  that the proposals would take cars  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing information on the locations and types of existing, consented and proposed waste management facilities in the Aire Valley Leeds, in line with Panel’s request for this detail at it’s meeting held on 4^th July 2013 (minute 22 refers)

(report attached)

  Further to minute 22 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 4^th July 2013, where as part of a pre-application presentation on proposals for an anaerobic digestion plant, Members requested a report providing information on existing, consented and proposed waste management facilities in the Aire Valley Leeds, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer

  A site plan showing the various energy from waste sites and their status was displayed

  The Minerals, Waste and Contaminated Land Manager presented the report and in response to questions from the Panel provided details on the sites; the different types of waste being dealt with and the recycling processes involved

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  capacity; the amount of waste catered for in the two schemes which were approved earlier in the year and the capacity of waste in Leeds

·  opportunities to tie in the energy generated from waste facilities to other uses, including the NGT

·  concerns at the number of different facilities and proposed schemes.  That the waste industry in Leeds was growing disproportionately when compared to other towns and cities and the possibility of waste from other areas being brought into Leeds to dispose of

·  the proximity of waste facilities into an area which was envisaged would contain a level of residential accommodation

·  concerns that the consent for an Energy From Waste facility at Skelton Grange had not yet been implemented

·  concerns that if there was not sufficient waste to process, that privately owned landfill sites could be mined, with detrimental impacts on local communities

·  that existing landfill sites in Leeds would soon be full and that as an option, anaerobic digestion was an effective method of treating organic waste

The Minerals, Waste and Contaminated Land Manager responded

to the points raised and provided the following information:

·  that the site at Pontefract Lane (Veolia) would take municipal waste and commercial and industrial waste, with a capacity of 214,000 tonnes.  The site at Skelton Grange (Biffa) would take commercial and industrial waste, with a capacity of 300,000 tonnes.  As neither of these facilities were operational at this time, there was zero capacity at present for alternatives to landfilling waste in the City

·  that granting planning permission for the Biffa site at Skelton Grange only, would not have been sufficient to cater for all of the municipal waste together with commercial and industrial waste in Leeds

·  that Leeds produced 40% of the waste generated in West Yorkshire

·  that when considering the issue of not accepting waste generated beyond Leeds, it had to be recognised that some waste generated in the City was sent away for processing elsewhere as because of the nature of the waste, there were not the appropriate facilities in Leeds to properly dispose of it

·  that there was the possibility of former private tips being mined for waste at some point in the future

RESOLVED -  To note the report and the information provided

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for the erection and installation of an Energy Recovery Facility (using Autoclave and Pyrolysis) and an Anaerobic Digestion Facility, an integrated education/visitor centre, provision of rail freight handling infrastructure and a new industrial link road access to the site via Knowsthorpe Gate, associated parking and landscaping

(report attached)

  Having noted that Councillor Ingham had commented on the proposals, for clarification, the Panel’s Legal Adviser advised that provided Councillor Ingham had not made up her mind on the proposals and was prepared to consider all the information before the Panel, then her earlier support did not prevent her from taking part in the decision

  Councillor Ingham advised that she had not made up her mind in respect of the proposals being considered

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

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in relation to an application for an Energy Recovery Facility at Bridgewater Road, Cross Green.  A late written representation on behalf of the applicants had been circulated to Panel Members prior to the meeting.  Members were advised that no pre-application presentation had been made to Panel on the proposals

  Officers outlined the proposals which were for a waste management facility capable of treating up to 195,000 tonnes of waste per annum, together with associated infrastructure, highways, rail freight handling infrastructure, visitor centre, car parking and landscaping.  Members were informed that the site was not safeguarded or allocated for waste purposes in the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan

  The waste process was explained to Panel with Members being informed that Officers did not question the benefits of the proposals but that with the exception of the road link, the proposals were not tied to this site with Officers of the view that the scheme could be delivered on two other sites

  Members were also informed that Officers considered that the proposals were not sufficiently robust; that the proposals needed to be considered in the context of the wider area and in the context of the aspirations for Aire Valley Leeds.  The development of the wider site would also necessitate the relocation of the existing asphalt plant currently located to the north

  The Panel’s Legal Adviser advised of a legal issue in respect of matters relating to this application and referred to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which showed an allocation of the site for rail use.  As the minerals policies 13 and 14 in the Local Plan - which dealt with minerals transport – had been successfully challenged in the High Court, these two policies had to be remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate for re-examination and until they were, they must be treated as not forming part of the Adopted Plan

  The Chief Planning Officer referred to the emerging plan for Aire Valley Leeds, which sought to amalgamate land at Yarn Street and the former Copperfields College site over the river, for housing use, with concerns being raised about the adequacy of the screening proposed

  The promotion of tourism along this area, down  to St Aidan’s was also a factor and that consideration had to be given to building heights, chimneys and loss of vegetation

  Members were referred to the section of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Further to minute 109 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th April 2013, where Panel received a pre-application presentation on proposals for a residential development at Spofforth Hill Wetherby, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position relating to an outline application for residential development of up to 400 dwellings, access and associated works including open space and structural landscaping

(report attached)

  Further to minute 109 of the City Plans Panel held on 11^th April 2013, where Panel received a pre-application presentation on proposals for a residential development on a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site at Spofforth Hill, Wetherby, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of these proposals

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and made reference to policy N35 of the UDPR, which had not been included in the report

  Members were informed that comments on the proposals were awaited from Natural England

  At the meeting in April 2013, Members had discussed the options for the access arrangements, with Members of the view that the best option was for a roundabout to be sited on land which was within the Harrogate boundary.  Harrogate Council had been approached but had indicated they would not support a roundabout at the proposed location

  Loss of trees had also been a subject of discussion at the April meeting, and arising from this, the number of trees to be removed had now reduced.  16 trees would now need to be removed, although some others could be affected, with discussions continuing on this

  A single access point was proposed for the development.  Whilst for this number of houses two access points were usual, it would be difficult to accommodate a further access point without removing trees.  Highways had indicated that the proposed access could be supported

  In relation to the provision of affordable housing, the developer had indicated that 35% affordable housing would be provided, although this was proposed to be split between 15% on-site provision and 20% off-site provision

  Members sought further information on:

·  the negotiations with Officers in Harrogate Council and North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) about the siting of a roundabout on land in the Harrogate boundary

·  the policy setting out the number of dwellings off a single access

Panel was informed that the issue had been raised with NYCC as part

of discussions on proposals at Thorp Arch.  NYCC had raised concerns about the proposal.  Harrogate Council had also objected  Concerns were expressed about how this had been dealt with, particularly in view of Members’ comments at the Plans Panel on 11^th April 2013

  In terms of the number of dwellings off a single access, the Transport Development Services Manager advised that the Street Design Guide was an adopted SPD and suggested that for 200-300 dwellings then more than 1 access should be considered.  Whilst this would be the preferred position and that the proposals would be better with a second access point, in this case it was not practical.  The design of the internal road, as a loop, was considered to mitigate against any blockages

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that at 400 dwellings, the proposals were double the minimum number of dwellings where a second access point should be considered and that the obvious solution would be to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for residential development comprising 104 dwellings with associated car parking and garages, formation of new access, public open space, landscaping and parking facilities and outline planning application for residential development and means of access

(report attached)

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

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on two applications, one in outline, one for full planning permission, for a residential development at Grove Road Boston Spa

  Officers presented the report and advised that the land was a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site and was adjacent to a Conservation Area

  The proposed outline application sought to establish the principle of development.  The detailed application provided a means of access off Grove Road; the proposed dwellings would be generally two storeys in height and comprise mainly detached dwellings.  Officers considered that the proposed layout was overly intense.  The application included 20 car parking spaces for the adjacent hospice

  The proposed materials would be artificial stone, some natural stone and render.  Officers had concerns about the extent of the artificial stone to be used on the scheme

  The site was 3.9ha in area and Officers were not aware that the land was needed for other uses.  However in terms of location, it was considered that Boston Spa was not well related to major urban areas.  Members were informed therefore that the application failed on criteria 1 of the Council’s interim policy on the release of PAS land for housing development

  Members were also informed that other housing land development opportunities were available in Boston Spa; that there were highways issues associated with the proposals; the site was some distance from local facilities and public transport was poor.  The development therefore would be heavily reliant on car use.  In terms of the transport assessment which had been submitted, Officers had concerns about this and whilst the applicant had submitted recent revisions, concerns remained about the internal road layout and parking facilities

  In terms of the layout of the development, some properties were too close to each other; the greenspace was considered not to be located in a usable or meaningful area and that a central location for this would be preferred.  There were also concerns about the impact of the development on existing trees, particularly damage to roots and that increased planting was needed around the site

  Regarding the impact of the proposals on living conditions, Officers were satisfied that the proposals would not impact on the amenity of residents in neighbouring properties but there were concerns about the living conditions of future residents of the development

  In respect of the S106 Agreement, Members were informed that this had not been taken forward in view of the major concerns which existed with the proposals

  Members considered how to proceed.  In view of the number of problems associated with the applications, Members were minded to refuse the application, but were asked to consider whether they wished for further negotiations to be undertaken

  In response to the specific points raised in the report, Members provided the following comments:

·  that the site was not in compliance with the interim  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for laying out of traveller site, comprising 12 pitches, ancillary buildings, parking and landscaping

(report attached)

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

  The Head of Planning Services presented the report which set out the current position on proposals to extend the travellers site at Cottingley Springs, Gildersome

  Members were informed that the site was situated in the Green Belt and that 12 pitches were proposed together with an amenity block and play areas

  Since the report had been written further objections to the application had been received with the total number currently being 670 standard letters of objection; 40 individual letters and a petition

  A recent meeting with the Environment Agency on site had taken place where evidence of flooding had been provided.  This evidence was now being assessed and comments from the Environment Agency were awaited

  If the site did flood, it could mean that the plots closest to the beck would be affected and that three plots could potentially be lost from the site.  An assessment would also need to be undertaken regarding possible compensatory flood storage further down from the site and that this was particularly important in relation to Farnley Wood Beck

  An extensive site search to accommodate further pitches had been undertaken and that there was an immediate need for such accommodation in the City, with Executive Board having concluded that a further extension of the Cottingley Springs site should be considered

  As a Green Belt site, Members were informed that by definition the proposal was inappropriate development however alongside that, the need for facilities for travellers and the flooding issues which had emerged would need to be considered.  A recent appeal case in Warwick which had been dismissed by the Secretary of State had been reported with reference being made to the balance between the development and its impact on the Green Belt

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that at the Local Development Framework hearing the Inspector had been unhappy with the policy on traveller sites and had requested revisions to be made

·  whether adjacent residents to the site had been offered compensation by the Council.  The Chief Planning Officer advised that he was not aware of compensation being offered

·  the nature of the evidence of flooding.  The Head of Planning Services stated that video evidence had been provided which showed an extent of standing water on the site and the beck with raised water levels

·  that wherever sites are located, there would be local concerns; that the proposed extension would not deal with the wider issues of demand and that smaller sites across the city could be a better way of dealing with this issue

·  possible increased flooding with concerns that Farnley Beck flooded easily and caused widespread problems and that housing development should not be allowed on land which flooded

·  the possibility of waiting for the Inspector’s view on the Council’s policy before considering the proposals

·  the extent of the changes which would be made to the site and the difficulty of reaching  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Thursday 21^st November 2013 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 21^st November 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds