Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the first City Plans Panel of 2015 and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

  The Chair introduced Tim Hill, the new Chief Planning Officer who would take over following Phil Crabtree’s imminent retirement

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

  RESOLVED -  That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following part of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as designated as follows:

  The appendix to the main report referred to in minute 111 under Schedule 12 Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the affairs of the applicant.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case, maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

  Although there were no formal late items, the Panel was in receipt of supplementary information on the position statement concerning proposed advertising sites around the city (minute 113 refers).  The information had been circulated to Panel prior to the meeting and published on the Council’s website

  Concerns were raised about the level of additional information provided to Members directly from applicants, with a legal view on this being requested

  The Head of Development and Regulatory stated that it was not good practice for developers and third parties to contact the Panel and that as the additional information sent directly by applicants and developers had not been considered by Officers, Members were advised to disregard that information

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 interest, however Councillor Leadley brought to the Panel’s attention in respect of application 12/02470/OT – Land between Gelderd Road/Asquith Avenue and Nepshaw Lane North – that he was the Chair of Morley Town Council Planning Committee which had commented on this and all previous applications on the site (minute 108 refers)

To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th December 2014

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th December 2014 be approved

  The Chief Planning Officer advised that a number of the reports being considered at the meeting referred to S106 Agreements and their completion within 3 months.  As Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect on 6^th April 2015, the timetable for dealing with outstanding S106 Agreements needed to be revised, with the wording to be ‘completed by 2^nd April 2015’

Further to minute 95 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th December where Panel deferred determination of an outline application for proposed employment development for use classes B1(b) and B1(c) (Research and Development/Light Industrial uses), B2 (General Industrial uses) and B8 (Storage and Distribution uses), for additional information, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  Further to minute 95 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th December 2014, where Panel deferred determination of an outline application for proposed employment development on a site designated for employment use by the UDP Inspector, for additional information, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer.  Appended to the report was a copy of the report presented in December 2014.  It was noted that Members had visited the site prior to their consideration of the application on 11^th December 2014

  Plans, graphics and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which responded to the issues raised by Panel at its previous meeting and outlined the conditions which were proposed to address matters such as phasing, quantum of development and the access arrangements

  Additional landscaping was now proposed to the residential dwellings at Belle Vue Terrace, together with the provision of an acoustic fence.  Planting details were also outlined for Nepshaw Lane North, with the minimum height of the proposed planting to be 10m.  Members were informed that an 8m wide verge was proposed which could accommodate additional planting, with this being considered at Reserved Matters stage

  In terms of the impact of the proposals on residents at Belle Vue Terrace, together with the additional planting proposed and the repositioning of the units as shown on the illustrative Master Plan, the adjoining unit would be restricted to B1 use only, with Officers of the view the proposals now represented an improvement in respect of the residents’ amenity

  Concerning the access arrangements and the view that this should be from Nepshaw Lane, whilst this suggestion had been put forward, the applicant required the access arrangements to be considered as set out in the application.  An additional highways condition had been included which related to the level of passenger car units for the different industrial uses proposed, with this providing flexibility of use whilst at the same time capping what could be built

  Reference was made to discussions by Development Plan Panel in respect of site allocations, at the meeting held on 13^th January 2015, where it was noted that some Members wished to see housing on all or part of the site.  Members were informed that employment use for the site was proposed but subject to the developer proceeding with this application and that in the event the scheme did not proceed, further consideration be given to the proposed allocation of this site

  The receipt of additional representations was reported, with one further objection from Morley Town Council being read out and nine further representations being referred to

  One issue which had arisen was in relation to a Right of Way (ROW), with representations being made that the proposed buffer at Belle Vue Terrace would encroach on this.  Members were advised that Officers considered the ROW did not encroach on the application site but that if evidence was provided to contradict that view, the scheme could be reworked at RM  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development including means of access

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented the report which related to an outline application for residential development on a Protected Area of Search (PAS) site in Linton

  Members were informed that the masterplan which accompanied the application indicated ten large houses in large plots.  It was noted that Linton was a relatively unsustainable village with few facilities and limited linkages to the nearest centre - Wetherby

  The proposals would see the loss of some trees and vegetation and Officers had concerns about the heavily engineered access into the site due to the topography of the land

  Having considered the application, Officers were of the view that it should be refused, with the main issues being outlined to Panel, as set out in the suggested reasons for refusal within the submitted report

  The receipt of an additional letter of representation was reported

  Members discussed the application, with the main issues raised relating to:

·  the topography of the site

·  the need to consider protecting the trees on and around the site through TPOs

·  that the application was not policy compliant and was premature

RESOLVED – That the Chief Planning Officer be asked to pursue TPO

applications on the trees on and around the site and that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1  The Local Planning Authority considers that the release of the site for housing development would be premature, being contrary to saved policy N34 of the UDP and contrary to paragraph 85, bullet point 4 of the NPPF.  The suitability of the site for housing purposes as part of the future expansion of Linton needs to be comprehensively reviewed as part of the preparation of the ongoing Site Allocations Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.  The location and scale of the site in relation to the village of Linton means that the proposal does not fulfil the criteria set out in the interim housing delivery policy approved by Leeds City Council’s Executive Board on 13^th March 2013, to justify early release ahead of the comprehensive assessment of safeguarded land being undertaken in the Site Allocations Plan.  It is anticipated that the Site Allocations Plan work will identify which sites will be brought forward for development in the life of the Plan together with the infrastructure which will be needed to support sustainable growth, including additional schools provision and where that would best be located.  It is considered that releasing this site in advance of that work would not be justified and would prejudice the comprehensive planning of future growth and infrastructure of the village in a plan-led way

2  The proposal is contrary to the Core Strategy which seeks to concentrate the majority of new development within and adjacent to the main urban area and major settlements.  The Site Allocations Plan is the right vehicle to consider the scale and location of new development and supporting infrastructure which should take place in Linton which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning on the following applications:

14/05481/OT – Outline application for residential development (maximum 300 units) together with other uses and revised landscaping – Northern development plots – land south of railway line Thorpe Park

14/05483/FU – Variation of condition 4 (floor space) of approval 12/03886/OT to read ‘ the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the total quantum of developments as listed below (all gross external areas) B1 – 83,615sqm, A1 (food store) – 9,000sqm, A1 not within the food store – 9,000sqm (A2, A3, A4 and A5 – 4,200sqm, C1, D1 and D2 – 16,340sqm of which no more than 14,050sqm shall be in the C1 hote use and 2,290sqm shall be in the D2 gym use

14/05484/COND – Revised masterplan relating to the approved application 12/03886/OT for a major missed use development at Thorpe Park

(report attached)

  Further to minute 86 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 20^th November 2014, where Panel received a position statement on proposals for a residential and mixed use development at Thorpe Park, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on the formal applications.  It was noted that application 14/05481/OT was for determination and not for consideration as a position statement as set out in error on the report before Panel.  Members were also informed that application 14/05484/COND had been withdrawn as this was not now required as the matter would be addressed by a specific condition linking the two applications

  Plans and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Reference was made to the Members site visit to a residential development in York which had taken place in late December, which had proved useful, with both positive and negative aspects of that scheme being noted

  Details of the revised S106 agreement were outlined, to reflect the housing element of the scheme now being proposed

  An omission at paragraph 2.4 of the submitted report was corrected, with Members being informed that a transport assessment had been submitted and assessed.  On condition no. 5, the application reference should read 14/05483/FU and if minded to approve the proposals, an additional condition was proposed on the outline application to cover details of the drainage pond and provision of updated surveys

  The Panel heard representations on behalf of an objector who outlined concerns which included:

·  the timescale for the necessary works, particularly in view of the application needing to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan

·  the proposed housing on the site

·  the trigger mechanisms

·  the existence of coal on the site; the possible extraction of this and the lack of consultation with the local community on this and that the application was ultra vires and could prompt a judicial review

·  the drainage ponds and the depths of these leading to safety concerns

·  the part of the site allocated for a supermarket, with concerns that due to the changing nature of this retail sector, further housing could be introduced into the scheme

The Panel then heard representations on behalf of the applicant, with

information provided about the proposals, which included:

·  the procedure needing to be followed as the application was a departure from the Development Plan

·  the bridge agreement with Network Rail and that the applicant was close to securing an agreement which would provide an additional 3 years for this work to be undertaken

·  that information had been provided about the ponds and how they would be managed

·  the introduction of housing into the site and the delivery of the MLLR

·  that a sign off of 2017 was still being worked towards and that consideration could be given to including a timetable for the works in the S106 agreement, subject to further discussions with Officers and Legal representatives, in order ease local concerns about the development

The Panel discussed the applications and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Further to minute 74 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 30^th October 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on a mixed use, multi-level development comprising the erection of 4 new buildings, with 744 residential apartments, 713sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A5, B1, D1, D2 use classes), car parking, landscaping and public amenity space, to consider the formal application

An appendix considered to be exempt under Access to Information Rule 10.4(3) and providing financial information accompanies the report

(report attached)

  Prior to considering this matter, Councillor Lewis left the meeting

Further to minute 74 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 30^th October 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on an application for a residential-led mixed use development at Sweet Street/Manor Road Holbeck, the Panel considered a further report setting out the formal application

  Accompanying the report was an appendix which contained exempt information and which was considered in private

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

  Officers presented the report which sought the redevelopment of a large brownfield site at the edge of Holbeck Urban Village

  Details of the buildings; the landscaping; public and private amenity areas and proposed materials were outlined to Panel.  A sun path diagram of the public space at different times of the day and year was shown, with Members being informed that most of the public realm would be in sun at lunchtime

  The apartment sizes of the 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings were broadly in line with the Leeds Standard, although the studios were smaller, at approximately 29 sqm in gross internal area

  The Panel heard representations from a representative of adjacent residents who attended the meeting and outlined concerns, which included:

·  the level of car parking proposed – 263 parking spaces for 744 apartments

·  the proximity of the Manor Road frontage to the neighbouring building

·  that detailed design issues needed further consideration

·  that low cost housing should be provided

The Panel then heard from the applicant’s agent.  Prior to her

submission to Panel, the Chair reminded her that in line with the legal advice provided on additional information sent directly to Panel Members, (minute 104 refers) the additional information which had been sent in respect of this application would be disregarded

  The applicant’s agent addressed the Panel and provided information which included:

·  the scheme was an improvement on the previously consented scheme for the site

·  that it complied with policy

·  that high quality accommodation in a variety of apartment sizes would be provided

·  that additional family accommodation had now been included

·  the site was in a highly sustainable location, well served by public transport and that the parking levels reflected this fact

·  that key worker units would be provided through the scheme, either on or off-site

The Chair then asked the public who were in attendance to withdraw

from the meeting to enable the Panel to consider information of a commercially sensitive nature

  Councillor R Procter left the meeting at this point

  A representative of the District Valuer was in attendance and explained the financial viability assessment he had carried out on the scheme and responded to questions and comments from the Panel.  It was noted that the model proposed was for the development to be sold to a single investor on completion and the units then leased

  Concerns were expressed that the development would only meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, when the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position on an outline application for mixed use redevelopment including A1, A3, A4 and A5 uses, offices (B1), residential (C3), medical centre, (D1), college (D1), student residential accommodation, multi storey car park, basement car parking, access and open space

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs, including a historic image of Quarry Hill Flats, and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of a major mixed use development at Quarry Hill which comprised 6 buildings around a centralised pedestrian route.  It was noted that a previous outline application for the central part of the Quarry Hill site was approved in principle by City Plans Panel in 2005 but as the S106 agreement was not signed, the application was never approved

  Details of the mix of uses were provided.  Members were informed that a flexible approach was being sought in terms of two of the buildings for office use/education use/student accommodation, depending upon the market conditions prevailing at the time of construction

  Matters of scale, layout and public realm were also outlined to Panel

  Members discussed the proposals, with the main issues raised being:

·  the importance of understanding the surrounding context including extant planning permissions and for the development to link into Victoria Gate at the bottom of Eastgate

·  the courtyards and the amount of sunlight these would receive and that rooftop gardens might be more appropriate in this location

·  the possibility of a fully accessible, ramped route being incorporated into the main pedestrian east-west route proposed through the site

·  the need for good design in terms of the pedestrian access arrangements and for improved linkages to the rest of the City Centre

·  to bear in mind the proximity of the District Heating system and that it could be linked to the proposed development

·  car parking arrangements and the need to ensure sufficient car parking remains on site through the construction process, to serve the West Yorkshire Playhouse

  In respect of the specific point raised in the report, the following comments were provided by Members

·  that Members were happy with the approach being adopted in relation to determining the mix and size of residential flats at reserved matters stage and that the housing need would be assessed closer to the point of likely construction

·  on student housing provision, concerns were raised that the site was some distance from the main higher education establishments, although it was accepted that the College of Music was close by.  Some concerns were raised about the mix of student accommodation and residential on the same site, with the Deputy Area Planning Manager suggesting any concerns about this be addressed by not siting these two types of accommodation in the same building

·  that the range of city centre uses proposed were acceptable on the site, including the proposed flexible uses for two of the buildings

·  that the footprints of the buildings, including the readjustment to the building corners at the western end of the site were acceptable

·  that the heights of the buildings proposed were acceptable to a point, although there were concerns about the impact of high buildings on the amount of shadowing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the latest position in respect of applications for large scale advertisements at various locations across the City Centre

(report attached)

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

Further to minute 25 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 17^th July 2014, where Panel considered a pre-application presentation on proposals for advertisement consent for 11 applications, 10 of which were large scale illuminated advertisement hoardings and 1 digital advertisement unit at sites located within or close to the City Centre boundary, mainly along the main arterial routes in and out of the city, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of these proposals.  A supplementary report providing updated information on the individual applications which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting was also considered

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

The Deputy Area Planning Manager presented the proposals and informed the Panel that the Council had entered into a contract with JC Decaux to evolve the Council’s existing advertising portfolio.  The proposals would see 22 existing hoardings at 10 sites being removed and 11 new advertisement units being provided

The Panel considered and commented on each application

To assist Members in understanding the background to the proposals,

the Chief Planning Officer stated that the income generated from the proposals would help fund other Council services and that as a planning authority, issues relating to public safety and visual amenity needed to be considered

  Although a number of the proposals were considered to be acceptable in principle, concerns were raised in respect of some sites, which included siting; highways concerns, particularly in relation to servicing; possible distraction to drivers due to the size of the units and their location

  It was noted that Highways Officers had concerns about some of the applications and that further information was required on several of the sites

  In respect of the specific matters raised in the report, the following comments were provided:

·  that Members were satisfied that the visual impact from the proposals were acceptable for several of the locations, but concerns remained about particular sites

·  that in light of concerns raised by Highways Officers that further detail on road safety measures and servicing assessments were required to support the applications

In particular, Members had concerns with the following sites:

·  14/06617/ADV – adjacent to the Woodhouse Lane multi-storey car park – the display was considered too dominant in its impact and would create a traffic hazard.  This was not supported

·  14/06618/ADV – Sheepscar Junction – the sign was too dominant and would add to the street clutter and there was a need to address these concerns and to resolve highway concerns

·  14/06621/ADV – Crown Point Road – there was a need to reconsider the design and exact location and that siting this to the east would be an improvement

·  14/06626/ADV – Kirkstall Road – concern this could impact on drivers exiting the West Street car park and could conflict with highway signs.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Thursday 29^th January 2015 at 1.00pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds (additional meeting)

  Thursday 29^th January 2015 at 1.00pm