Agenda and minutes

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

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 A McKenna who was substituted at the meeting by Councillor J McKenna

To approve the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 18^th April 2013

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  To approve the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 18^th April 2013

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a Reserved Matters application for the erection of 10 houses with landscaping

(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 sought reserved matters approval for a small residential scheme at Grange Farm, Great North Road Micklefield LS25

  Members were informed that the site formed part of a wider Phase 3 housing site and that the site was now cleared of the buildings referred to in the submitted report.  The route of the public right of way (PROW) which ran through the site was highlighted for Members’ consideration

  The proposed house types were primarily two storey and of simple design.  In terms of materials, these did not form part of the reserved matters application but that render and brick had been indicated at the time of application.  Officers had noted Micklefield Parish Council’s concerns about the materials being proposed and the Parish Council’s preference for magnesium limestone.  Members were informed that Officers were now considering two types of red brick as the main material, with the render elements no longer being proposed.  As Officers considered that the immediate context did not rely on the use of magnesium limestone, the use of red brick was felt to be appropriate. 

Members were informed that an application for the discharge of conditions imposed on the approved outline application had recently been received and was being considered

Some concerns had been received in respect of the distances of the new dwellings to the existing properties nearby and the relationship between the two, with Members were informed that Officers were satisfied that good separation distances were being achieved for this development

The Panel then heard representations from an objector who was representing Micklefield Parish Council

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the land levels of plot 6

·  the PROW and whether any improvements would be made to it, with Members being informed that as part of the outline permission, there was a condition which related to surfacing of the PROW and that Highways would seek to adopt the whole area, with improvements to the current situation being achieved

·  the proposed materials; that there were different shades and tones of red brick and whether its predominant use was appropriate in this location

Members considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and additional conditions relating to the submission and approval of garden levels of plot 6, and the submission and approval of brick samples, in consultation with Ward Members and following the expiry of the revised publicity period and subject to no new representations being received which raise new significant material planning considerations

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of a detached house with integral garage

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings 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 application for the demolition of an existing workshop, which was in poor condition, and the erection of a detached house with integral garage at the rear of 44 Main Street Methley

  The view of Officers was that there were issues about the design of the proposed dwelling and the impact of the proposals on residential amenity and for these reasons refusal of the application was being recommended to Panel

  Members heard representations on behalf of the applicant who stated that minor amendments to the application could be made which might alleviate some of the concerns raised by Officers

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

1 The proposed development would by reason of its siting, scale and design, represent development that lacks architectural continuity and is contrived in appearance thereby resulting in an incongruous feature when viewed in context with the site and its surroundings.  As such the proposed development represents harm to the interests of visual amenity thereby conflicting with the Policies GP5, N12 and N13 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and the design advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2 The proposed development would by reason it its siting, scale, design and overall height result in overlooking, overshadowing and represent development that is intrusive and over dominant to the occupants of the properties at Nos 40, 42, 44 and 46 Main Street.  The future occupants of the proposed dwelling would also suffer from being unduly overlooked.  As such the development would be prejudicial to the living conditions of the occupants of existing dwellings and future occupants of the proposed development.  As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to Policies GP5 and BD5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and the guidance contained in the City Council’s Residential Design Guide – Neighbourhoods for Living

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a two storey, single storey side/rear extension and re-siting of steps with railings above to rear

(report attached)

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

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented a report for extensions and alterations to 41A Stainburn Crescent LS17 and outlined the recent planning history on the site

  Previous applications for extensions in 2010 and 2011 had been refused by Panel, although permission for a smaller scheme was granted under delegated powers in 2012.  Plans showing the previous refused proposals and the 2012 permitted scheme were shown for context

  The receipt of three further letters of objection was reported

  Members heard representations on behalf of an objector and the applicant who attended the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the submitted plans did not accurately represent the situation on site as the dormer which had been constructed under Permitted Development Rights was not shown and the drawings were not sufficiently clear to enable Members to form a view on what was being proposed

·  the means of internal access to the rear extension as it appeared on plan that this could only be accessed from the outside

In view of the concerns expressed by Members about the lack of detail

on the submitted plans, it was proposed to defer determination of the application

  RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred to enable detailed and accurate plans of the site to be submitted together with details on how the summer lounge would be used and accessed

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on an appeal lodged against the refusal of planning permission for a detached garage with first floor office

(report attached)

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out an appeal decision relating to application 12/00450/FU – detached garage with first floor offices at The Coach House Carr Lane Thorner LS14 (minutes 203 of the former Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th April 2012 and minute 211 of the former Plans Panel East meeting held on 17^th May 2012 refer)

  The Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal was noted and welcomed by Members of the Panel.  Panel also noted that the cost claim made against the Council had been dismissed by the Inspector

  The Chair outlined the background to the decision for Members’ information

  RESOLVED -  To note the Inspector’s decisions on the appeal and the claim for costs against the Council

Thursday 13^th June 2013 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 13^th June 2013, at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds