Agenda and minutes

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

  There were no formal late items, however the Panel was in receipt of a supplementary report in relation to applications 14/01660/OT – Land east of Otley Road Adel and 14/01874/OT – land off Church Lane Adel, providing an update on highways matters and proposing amendments to some of the reasons for refusal set out in the main reports and proposing a further reason for refusal (minutes 60, 61 and 62 refer)

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

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Procter

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Panel on 18^th September 2014

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 18^th September 2014 be approved

  With reference to minute 48 – application 13/03051/OT- Spofforth Hill Wetherby, the Chief Planning Officer stated that a report back on the outstanding matters in respect of this application would be submitted to the City Plans Panel meeting on 30^th October 2014

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development (up to 80 dwellings) and public open space.

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

  Although there were two applications for consideration on the same PAS site, the decision was taken to present both applications together, although it was stressed that Panel would need to determine the applications separately

  Application 14/01660/OT was presented by Officers and Members were informed of the revisions made to the scheme which originally had proposed 88 dwellings.  Whilst English Heritage had objected to the original scheme in respect of its impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade 1 Listed Church, the removal of the dwellings sited closest to the church had satisfied English Heritage sufficiently to withdraw its objection, although adequate screening and landscaping had been requested by the organisation

  Application 14/01877/OT was presented by Officers, with Members being informed that a revised plan for this scheme had also been submitted, with access now being from the Centurion Fields development.  English Heritage had also withdrawn their objection to this scheme

  The reasons for refusal of both applications were outlined to Members, with reference being made to the supplementary report which had been circulated prior to the meeting.  Members were also informed that in respect of application 14/01847/OT, the applicant had requested the report be withdrawn to enable highway modelling relating to the NGT proposals to be completed by the NGT team, with the applicant considering it to be unreasonable to refuse the application on potential highway impact when the necessary modelling work, funded by the applicant but carried on behalf of the Council was not completed.  Having considered this, Officers proposed an amendment to reason 2 for refusal on both applications and an additional reason relating to highways on both applications with these being set out in the supplementary report before Panel

  Following additional representations received from the applicant’s highways consultant, further highway improvements were now proposed for both applications.  It was noted that these improvements although welcome, had been made at a late stage and Officers had been unable to fully assess these proposals, however it was felt that reason 4 for refusal of both applications could be deleted, subject to amendments to reason 5 for refusal, as set out in the additional report

  The Transport Development Services Manager clarified the highways issues in respect of both applications and reiterated the view that despite the recent offer of further highways improvements, concerns remained about the impact of the proposals on the local highway network; that not all the data necessary had been provided and that the impact of the proposals on surrounding roads and junctions had not been addressed.  Regarding the issue raised by the applicant around NGT modelling, this had been addressed by amending the reasons for refusal  

The Panel then heard representations from a representative of the applicant who stated he was content to deal with both of the applications at the same time, with the Chair advising that he would have up to 6 minutes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

  With reference to the discussions set out in minute 60, the Panel considered how to proceed

  For the avoidance of doubt, the Head of Planning Services clarified the reasons for refusal of the application, in view of the amendments made in the supplementary report before Members

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

  1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the release of this site for housing development would be premature being contrary to Policy N34 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and contrary to Paragraph 85, bullet point 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  As the application site forms part of a larger designation of safeguarded land (total 11.7 ha), is not located in an area where housing land development is demonstrably lacking and does not include or facilitate significant benefits, it also fails to meet the criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved by the Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013, to justify early release.  The suitability of the site (and the wider safeguarded area of which it forms part) for housing purposes needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan

  2 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposals can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily on the local highway network in relation to impact on the proposed NGT junction designs

  3 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposals can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily on the local highway network.  Specific issues relate to the validity of the traffic count data used, the lack of future traffic growth applied to future year scenarios and validity of queue length modelling at the Church Lane/A660 junction.  In addition, no assessment has been made of impact at the Long Causeway/Adel Lane or Weetwood Lane/ Ring Road junctions

  4 The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed means of access via a signalised junction onto the A660 will unnecessarily delay movement and increase road traffic accidents on the A660 and is therefore an unsuitable form of access into the site and that as such the proposals would be detrimental to the safe and free flow of traffic and pedestrian and cycle user convenience and safety.  Also that the applicant has failed to work with the adjacent applicant to take opportunities to provide a comprehensive access solution to both sites.  For these reasons the application does not comply with polices GP5, T2, T2B and T5 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006, policies T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and guidance contained within the adopted Street Design Guide SPD

  5 In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the proposed development so far fails to provide necessary contributions for the provision of affordable housing, education, greenspace, public transport, cycle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development (up to 46 dwellings) and public open space.

With reference to the discussions set out in minute 60, the Panel considered how to proceed

  For the avoidance of doubt, the Head of Planning Services clarified the reasons for refusal of the application, in view of the amendments made in the supplementary report before Members

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

  1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the release of this site for housing development would be premature being contrary to Policy N34 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and contrary to Paragraph 85, bullet point 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  As the application site forms part of a larger designation of safeguarded land (total 11.7 ha), is not located in an area where housing land development is demonstrably lacking and does not include or facilitate significant benefits, it also fails to meet the criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved by the Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013, to justify early release.  The suitability of the site (and the wider safeguarded area of which it forms part) for housing purposes needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan

  2 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposals can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily on the local highway network in relation to impact on the proposed NGT junction designs

  3 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has so far failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposals can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily on the local highway network.  Specific issues relate to the validity of the traffic count data used, the lack of future traffic growth applied to future year scenarios and validity of queue length modelling at the Church Lane/A660 junction.  In addition, no assessment has been made of impact at the Long Causeway/Adel Lane or Weetwood Lane/ Ring Road junctions

  4 The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed means of access via a signalised junction onto the A660 will unnecessarily delay movement and increase road traffic accidents on the A660 and is therefore an unsuitable form of access into the site and that as such the proposals would be detrimental to the safe and free flow of traffic and pedestrian and cycle user convenience and safety.  Also that the applicant has failed to work with the adjacent applicant to take opportunities to provide a comprehensive access solution to both sites.  For these reasons the application does not comply with polices GP5, T2, T2B and T5 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006, policies T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and guidance contained within the adopted Street Design Guide SPD

  5 In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the proposed development so far fails to provide necessary contributions for the provision of affordable housing, education, greenspace, public transport, cycle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer with regards to an Extension of time of previous approval 08/02061/FU for multi-level development up to 9 storey's high above ground level comprising 46 student cluster flats and 24 studio flats (total of 239 beds) and 1 retail unit, car parking, common room and ancillary facilities.

  Councillor J Lewis joined the meeting at this point

  Plans, photographs, graphics and a sample panel of the proposed materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought an extension of time limit for the implementation of a scheme for student housing approved in principle at the former Plans Panel City Centre on 11^th September 2008 and granted planning permission on 15^th September 2009

  Members were informed that all parts of the scheme were exactly the same as the original approved scheme.  Although there had been changes to both the development plan and national planning guidance since the original application was granted consent, as detailed in the Chief Planning Officer’s report to Panel, it was recommended to Members to approve the application in principle and to defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 Agreement Deed of Variation

  Although there were no registered speakers to this application, the Chair informed Members that the applicant’s agent was in attendance to respond to questions from the Panel, if required

  Members considered the application, with the key areas of discussion relating to:

·  the design principles of buildings in this location

·  the need for further student housing

·  the impact of large scale student developments in this area and the concerns which had been raised at the time these applications had begun to emerge

·  the sizes of some of the studios, particularly those at 19.4sqm and the need for these to be enlarged or reconfigured into cluster flats.  Officers agreed to pursue this issue with the developer

·  the proposed materials; their durability and weathering; how the condition relating to the materials would be discharged; the design of the windows and the coloured glazed elements

·  that the application dated from 2002 with concerns that Panel was being asked to accept something which was dated and did not provide the space Members would require in an application submitted in 2014

·  the reasons for the delay in implementing the planning permission and the likelihood of the scheme being delivered.  The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to respond to these points

To assist Members with their deliberations, the Head of Planning

Services stated that extension of time applications had been brought in by the Government to help deal with the effects of the recession, although only one extension of time application could be made.  It was possible to amend the time period for implementation, with a period of 18 months being suggested for Members’ consideration.  Whatever time limit was agreed if the approval had not been implemented, the applicant would need to reapply

  Regarding the room sizes, the Head of Planning Services stated that standards were changing; the Council was moving to a ‘ Leeds Standard’ for residential dwellings and that guidance was also being proposed as part of a National Standard

  Members continued to discuss how to proceed and noted the applicant’s agent’s request for a minimum period of 2 years for implementation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

1:30pm Thursday 30^th October 2014

  Thursday 30^th October 2014 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds