Agenda and minutes

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

  There were no formal late items.  It had been noted that several reports had small amounts of text missing from them when they had been copied.  A schedule was circulated to Panel prior to the meeting which provided the paragraphs in full (minutes 65; 67,69 and 70 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 Campbell who was substituted for by Councillor J Bentley

To approve the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 21^st March 2013

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 21^st March 2013 be approved as a correct record subject to amending the attendance to reflect Councillor Taylor’s absence from the meeting

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a two storey side extension

(report attached)

  The Chair requested that this application be withdrawn from the agenda to enable further discussions to take place

  RESOLVED -  That the report be withdrawn from the agenda

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of part of the ground floor surgery to form pharmacy and to construct a two storey and single storey rear extension

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented a report which sought permission for alterations and extensions to a GP surgery at Crossley Street LS22, which was situated in the Wetherby Conservation Area

  Members were informed that the proposals were to provide better space standards for patients and staff and would not increase the number of staff at the surgery.  To provide better facilities for the patients, many of which were older people, a lift to the first floor consulting rooms would be provided and the pharmacy currently sited on the opposite side of Crossley Street would be relocated into the surgery

  The proposals would not impact on the level of car parking to be provided and the existing kerb line would remain unchanged.  The bin store would be relocated to the car park which was considered to be an improvement on the existing situation

  In terms of the design of the scheme, Officers were of the view that it was sympathetic and in keeping with the existing building

  Concerning local objections about loss of light, overlooking and dominance, it was accepted that there was the potential for overshadowing to occur but this would in the late afternoon.  As the rear extension was stepped in and was single storey it was not felt to be unduly detrimental to residential amenity

  The receipt of a further letter of objection from the resident of the property closest to the surgery was reported

  Members were informed that a larger scheme had initially been proposed but this had been scaled down.  To avoid the expansion of the medical staff at the surgery a condition had been included to restrict the numbers of doctors and nurses on site at any one time and in terms of the pharmacy, a condition was proposed to ensure this was ancillary to the surgery

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

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  the need for the proposed improvements and that money was being spent on other NHS facilities in the area

·  the impact of the proposals on the residents living closest to the surgery

·  that the scheme had been well planned and was sympathetic to the area

Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for new first floor to existing bungalow to form house; two storey side/rear extension with terrace to rear and steps to one side; canopy to front; widened vehicular access and enlarged area of hardstanding to front

(report attached)

  Further to minute 55 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting on 21^st March 2013 where Panel deferred consideration of the application to enable a site visit to take place, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer in respect of proposals for alterations and extensions to an existing bungalow to form a house at The Bungalow Main Street Linton LS22

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

  Officers presented the report and referred to an extant permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a 5 bedroom house.  Members were informed that as the extant scheme was too costly to be implemented the revised proposals before Panel had been submitted which if approved, would be for a 4 bedroom property

  The proposals would see the height of the property increased, with the new roof being 2.1m higher than the existing roof.  The footprint of the existing building would be largely retained although a double garage would be built to the side of the dwelling.  An improvement to the existing entrance to the property was proposed by widening the initial entrance by approximately 1.5m to provide improved access

  The Panel’s Highways representative stated that the existing access was substandard in terms of visibility and that it was not possible to access and exit the site in forward gear.  The proposals improved the situation by maximising visibility in one direction, improving accessibility from Main Street and increasing the amount of hardstanding up to the garage enabling two vehicles to access the site and garage and turn within the site

  If minded to approve the application, the Panel’s Lead Officer suggested an additional condition relating to details of boundary treatment and retaining structures during and post construction to be agreed.  Condition no 5 ‘details of conditions for contractors prior to commencement of any works’ was clarified, with this to include details of construction management incorporating delivery, uploading and storage of plant, machinery and building materials; the management of removal of material from the site and parking of  contractors’ vehicles together with days and hours of building operations

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

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the impact of the proposals on the boundary wall to the neighbouring property, Old Rose Cottage

·  the possibility of setting the first floor element  of the two storey rear extension further back into the site

·  that a second vehicular access would serve a purpose

·  that concerns had been expressed locally about water run off

·  that timber framed windows were not being sought and the reasons for this

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that an additional condition was proposed in respect of the boundary treatment which might require some survey work to be undertaken and possibly replacement boundary treatment to be provided

·  that the previous appealed applications had an alternative access towards the northern extent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a single storey front extension

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented the report which related to proposals for a single storey front extension to the existing property at 2 St Peter’s Garth, Thorner LS14.  Having considered the application, Officers were recommending it be refused, with the detailed reason being set out in the submitted report for Members’ consideration

  The level of local support for the proposals was outlined and the number of similar extensions in the local area to the one proposed were highlighted.  Officers explained that many of these dated back to the 1970s and before the introduction of the Householder Design Guide and if assessed today, would not be granted planning permission.  Although negotiations had taken place with the applicant to consider revisions to the proposals which could be supported by Officers, this had not been achieved and that it would be a decision for Panel to make having regard to the character of the area and whether the extension was harmful to that

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the varying styles of properties and extensions in the local area

·  the lack of a coherent streetscene in the area

·  the two skylights in the extension; that these were not in keeping with surrounding properties and that it would better for them to be omitted, with mixed views on this

  RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application be not accepted and that the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to enable conditions relating to commencement and materials to be attached to an approval

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for demolition of existing building and erection of a foodstore to the rear of the site with associated access, car parking, servicing and landscaping and an application for demolition of existing building and erection of a foodstore to the front of the site with associated access, car parking, servicing and landscaping

(report attached)

  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 providing a position statement on two applications for the demolition of the existing building, Allerton House, and the erection of a supermarket with associated access, car parking, servicing and landscaping, one application showing a location of the store at the rear of the site; the other application having the store sited the front of the site

  Members were informed that both proposals would need to be determined on their merits when the formal applications were ready for determination

  The site was a key site in the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area and was within an S2 centre

  Application 12/05296/FU

·  this application was for a store to be positioned at the rear of the site and that an application for a store to the rear had been refused under delegated powers in June 2012

·  although the design of the scheme was predominantly unchanged from the previous scheme, additional landscaping would be provided, although a car-dominated frontage was still being created

·  the access to the store was located close to the residential properties at 3 and 5 Grosvenor Park

Application 13/00694/FU

·  this application was for a store to the front of the site

·  a bespoke design which would include a significant amount of clear glazing was being proposed

·  whilst the access to the store was in the same location as that on the other application, the delivery area was sited adjacent to the boundary of 1 Grosvenor Park and that the applicant proposed an acoustic enclosure to mitigate against noise from deliveries.  Hours of delivery were proposed as being 6am – midnight, for both applications, with discussions continuing on this matter

·  an active frontage to Harrogate Road would be created

Members were informed that both applications included the provision of

public realm and a pedestrian crossing

  Concerning public consultation, a public meeting had been held earlier in the week, with around 150 people attending, with split views on the appropriateness of the applications

  Members discussed the applications and commented on the following matters:

·  the vehicular access arrangements, with the Panel’s highways representative stating that Officers had concerns about the HGV movements to the store at the rear of the site as customer manoeuvres close to the site access would be held up to accommodate delivery vehicles, affecting the whole site.  Although there would still be some shared vehicular access with customers on the proposals for a store to the front, this would be less of a problem as the delivery area would be further from the site access

·  possible noise nuisance, with Members being informed that the Council’s Environmental Protection Team would be consulted on the proposed delivery hours and the acoustic mitigation measures which were being proposed for the front location

·  the need for the site to be developed but that the local community was unsure whether a supermarket on the site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a first floor side extension with window to side

(report attached)

  Further to minute 19 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 1^st November 2012 where Panel approved a side extension at 60 Jackson Avenue LS8, Panel considered a further report

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Members were informed that a further application had been submitted which sought permission for a first floor side extension, increased roof height and additional window which would be covered by a pitched roof.  As the applicant was a senior Highways Officer, the application fell to Members to determine

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

Further to minute 189 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 22^nd March 2012, where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve a change of use of restaurant (A3 within the Use Classes Order) to form restaurant and takeaway (mixed use of A3 and A5 in the Use Classes Order), to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer summarising the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant

(report attached)

  Further to minute 189 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 22^nd March 2012, where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve a change of use of restaurant to restaurant and takeaway at 2 Victoria Court Wetherby LS22, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision to the appeal which had been lodged by the applicant

  Panel noted that the appeal was allowed

  RESOLVED -  To note the report

Thursday 16^th May 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  Thursday 16^th May 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds