Agenda and minutes

The following Members attended the site visits:

Councillors, Hamilton, Ritchie, McKenna, Grahame, Walshaw, and Wilkinson

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals against refusal of inspection of documents.

There were no exempt items.

There were no late items. However, there was supplementary information for Item 6 – Minutes. The draft minutes of the additional meeting held on 30^th March 2017 to consider eight sites as part of the programme for brownfield development had not been ready when the agenda was produced and were provided to Members via email prior to the meeting of the 13^th April 2017 with hard copies tabled at the meeting.

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. 

Declarations were received from the following Councillors:

·  Councillor R Grahame as Member of the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority in relation to Item 10 – Position Statement – Erection of Fire Station, Training Tower, Training Yard and associated parking and Landscaping. Land at Black Moor Road, Moortown.

·  Councillor S Arif in relation to Item 11- Two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension and first floor rear extension at 27, High Ash Drive, Alwoodley, as the applicants son and daughter in law were known to her.

·  Councillor S Hamilton in relation to Item 12 – Part demolition of existing buildings and refurbishment of part of 13 Parkside Road erection of two houses to form a terrace, with parking at 13-17 Parkside Road, Meanwood, as the application was in her ward.

There were no apologies for absence.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th March 2017, as a correct record.

(Minutes attached)

To approve the minutes of the additional meeting held on 30^th March 2017 at which eight sites were considered as part of the Brownfield Programme.

(Minutes to follow)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th March 2017 be approved as a correct record and;

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30^th March 2017 be approved as a correct record with the addition at minute 149 – Site C Residential development of 102 dwellings; new public open space and associated highway improvements at Wykebeck Mount/ Avenue Leeds 9, to say that Councillor Grahame had requested that the infrastructure be assessed with the view to a new train station for the area.

The report of The Planning Officer provides the Panel with information for the change of use of land to traveller pitch with detached utility block and associated works, retrospective application for laying out of hardstanding on Land Off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater, WF10

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer suggested reasons for refusal of the application heard at the meeting held on 9^th March 2017. The application was to change the use of land to a traveller pitch with detached utility block and associated works, retrospective permission for laying out hardstanding at land off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater. Minute 130 refers

Reason 1 for refusal contained a typo as it repeats ‘and of users’ twice on same sentence.

The application had been considered by the Panel to represent an overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the amenities of the future occupiers of the site by reason of the close proximity of the individual caravans, and inadequate space remaining around those caravans for the purpose of recreation.

The development by reason of the nature of the caravans, lack of appropriate landscaping and the enclosure of the site by high walls, fences and gates was considered to be out of character with the semi-rural character of the immediate area and as such is detrimental to the amenities of the location as a whole.

It was noted that it is normal practice for any necessary Enforcement Notices to be served at the same time as the decision notice refusing an application. The reasons for serving the notice will be slightly different to the reasons for refusal as it would need to cover the occupation of the Green Belt by the applicants. This was included for information.

It was noted that at the Panel of the 9^th March 2017 Members had discussed and raised concerns in relation to access arrangements and the movement of large vehicles. Members requested that this also needed to be included within the reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED - Members ratified the reasons for refusal as set out in the submitted report and with the inclusion of a third reason relating to concerns about the access arrangements and manoeuvring of vehicles.  PoliciesT2 and GP5 to be cited.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer asks Members to consider Full planning application for the erection of 88 dwellings including associated car parking and garages, formation of new access, public open space, landscaping and parking facilities Land Off Grove Road, Boston Spa, Wetherby

(Report attached)

Cllr. Procter joined the meeting at 13:50

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out plans for a residential development of 88 dwellings at Grove Road, Boston Spa.

It was noted that this application proposed the redevelopment of a Greenfield site which was designated as a ‘Protected Area of Search’ (PAS).

Members had noted that at paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 the report had set out background of this development including that the application had been the subject of call in by the Secretary of State. The outcome of the appeal was that it was upheld and outline planning permission, including vehicular access was granted for up to 104 dwellings.

The proposal was for 88 dwellings with a mix of 2, 3, 4, and 5 bedroom houses generally of two storeys with some properties comprising dormers in the roof space. The design of the houses was to be traditional with some houses having chimneys. Members noted that the development would comprise of some affordable housing and also a small apartment block.

The development has a boundary to Martins House Hospice, and green belt and a nursery is sited close by. The development would be within walking distance of Boston Spa town centre. The application had been amended to the footway and hedge along part of Grove Road frontage to facilitate improved pedestrian connections to the existing bus stops and to provide the required forward visibility for users of Green Lane.

The development would include the landscaping of a large public open space with most trees being retained. It was noted that trees along the boundary with Martins House Hospice would be retained with more planted to provide privacy for the hospice.

Members were advised that there would be sufficient parking for each dwelling and the proposal involved the creation of 20 additional car parking spaces within the site to be used by the hospice.

Members were informed that highways had found the internal layout acceptable with sufficient parking. Members were informed at this point of an amendment to recommendation to omit Section 106 obligation for provision of off-site Highways works and secure this through a planning condition instead.

Members were advised that the contribution towards sustainable travel fund had been amended to £43, 221.

Angela Monaghan, Chief Executive of Martins House Hospice attended the meeting and informed the Members that the Hospice could be providing support for up to 400 families. She told the Panel that the boundary of the hospice where it adjoined the development was one of the most sensitive parts of the hospice as it housed the mortuary suite and an area for bereaved families.

Ms Monaghan informed the Members that she had been in discussion with Miller Homes in relation to boundary treatment and asked for reassurance that the boundary treatment would be effective to provide privacy and safety to those using the hospice. 

The meeting was also attended by Stephen Wright a resident of the area. Mr Wright spoke to the Panel about his concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members to consider an application for Dormer windows to front and rear 71 Hill Top Mount, Chapeltown, LS8

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sought approval for a replacement of pitched roof with flat roof dormer to front and new flat roof dormer to the rear at 71 Hill Top Mount, Leeds.

The application had first been presented to the Panel on 7th April 2016, where Members requested that officers find out more about the personal circumstances of the family. Minute 172 refers

A visit to the site had taken place earlier in the day.

It was noted that the agent had requested that the application be deferred as he was on holiday and was unable to attend the meeting. Members informed the Chair that they wished to continue with the item.

Members were advised that the rear dormer fell within Permitted Development Criteria but had not yet been implemented.

To aid officers to better understand the circumstances of the applicant a meeting had been held at which the agent and Councillor Arif Hussain attended. An internal inspection of the top floor bedrooms was undertaken. At the meeting it was noted that the top floor rear room was being used for storage with the top floor front room being used as a bedroom.

Members were advised that due to the father being ill and using one of the downstairs rooms as a bedroom the top floor rooms were required to provide more space for his children. Members noted that the house had been altered with the kitchen and dining room now located in the basement of the house.

Members discussed the character of the area and the dormers which already exist in the area.

Members also considered the benefits of the application to the family.

At the conclusion of the discussions, Councillor S McKenna moved a motion to reject the recommendations as detailed within the submitted report, so that the application be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor S Arif. On being put to the vote, Councillor McKenna’s motion was passed, and it was

RESOLVED - That the application be granted within the 3 year condition and that the applicant use slate on the dormers.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer asks Members to consider the position statement for the erection of fire station, training tower, training yard and associated parking and landscaping Land off Black Moor Road, Moortown, Leeds

(Report attached)

It was noted that Councillor Grahame did not take part in this item, minute 156 refers.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sought consideration of a pre-application submission for the development of land at The Ring Road Moortown, Black Moor Road and Alderton Bank for the purpose of a new fire station.

Members were informed this proposed new fire station would replace the existing fire stations at Cookridge and Moortown which were due to close.

Members were advised that paragraph 10.2 of the submitted report listed other sites that had been considered and the reasons that they were unsuitable.

Members were informed that the new station would be a 2 storey building with rooms located within the roof slope. The building would be no more than 1 metre higher than properties in the area however the training tower would be 14 metres high. The station would be a 2 bay fire station with parking for 6 staff cars and ambulance bay.

It was noted that egress would be to Black Moor Road with vehicles returning to the station via Alderton Bank.

Members were informed that 19 letters of objection had been received and a petition containing 50 signatures was submitted to the agents and copied to Leeds Planning. Members also noted that Cllr. Cohen had raised an objection to the application, his submission was read out at the meeting for Members consideration.

Cllr. Cohen’s objections were as follows:

·  Not appropriate to build on green space

·  Other suitable sites exist for this development

·  Unduly negative impact on the local area and out of character. Training Tower is particularly dominant.

·  Impact on busy road network

·  Loss of visual amenity and privacy for adjacent occupants.

·  Insufficient car parking

·  Concerns are shared with concerns raised by Yorkshire Water in relation to drainage issues

·  Significant local concerns, evidenced by the number of objectors

Ms T Levy and Ms S Broadbent were present at the meeting representing local residents who were objecting to the site of the new fire station.

Ms Levy and Ms Broadbent informed the Panel that there was limited green space in the area and this part was used by children and dog walkers. They said that they had been verbally assured that no further development would take place on that green space after the Moor Allerton Centre had been built.

Ms Levy and Ms Broadbent listed their objections as the following:

·  Visual impact would be compromised due to the 2.8 metre wire mesh fencing, station building and tower

·  The loss of trees even with planting of new trees as they would not mature for a number of years

·  Traffic is already bad particularly on a weekend heading towards the Moor Allerton Centre

·  The junction at Black Moor Road has had a number of accidents

·  The building will obscure the junction

·  Parking will be an issue particularly on social occasions such as ‘Fun Days

·  Noise disturbance and disturbed sleep not only during leaving to attend a call but also when returning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for a two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension and first floor rear extension 27 High Ash Drive, Alwoodley, LS17

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension and first floor rear extension at 27 High Ash Drive, Alwoodley had been brought to Plans Panel at the request of Cllr. Harrand. Cllr. Harrand had concerns that the proposed application would make number 27 the largest house on High Ash Drive and would be out of tune with neighbouring properties.

Cllr. Harrand was also of the view that the impact of the extension on the narrow ginnel at the side of number 27 would create a dark and narrow passage.

Members were advised of the planning history of this property at paragraph 4.0 of the submitted report.

Members were asked to note that this application proposed a small reduction in height and width and that the side extension had also been scaled down so that as not to impact on the ginnel. Members had visited the site earlier in the day and noted that the ginnel on both sides of High Ash Drive benefitted from street lighting and that number 29 also had a side extension set close to the ginnel.

Mrs Moira Butt attended the meeting to speak on behalf of the residents who had objected. There had been 10 objections received.

Mrs Butt explained that she had no objection to the lower extension as this was to be for a disabled person.

Mrs Butt informed the Panel that the house had already been extended and that this application was not dissimilar to the application which had been refused previously.

Mrs Butt went on to say that the bungalows at the rear of the property would feel overlooked.

Mrs Butt informed Members that the ginnel was used by older residents for getting to bus stops, and would be used more by mums and children when the nursery was relocated. She said that the extension at number 29 is close to the ginnel and that if the extension at 27 went ahead it would make the ginnel dark and unwelcoming.

Mrs Gurjit Chhokar the applicant’s daughter in law addressed the Panel explaining that the applicant’s son was physically and mentally disabled and required the extension downstairs for his safety.

Mrs Chhokar informed the Panel of the following points:

·  That a letter had been written to Cllr. Harrand to inform him that the extension had been reduced

·  That it was not accurate that the house would be the largest on High Ash Drive

·  That one of the objectors provided an address in Sheffield

·  That properties opposite had extensions and were also located next to a ginnel

·  That side windows would be obscure glazed

Members considered the views of all the parties.

RESOLVED – That Members grant permission subject to conditions set out in the submitted report.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the demolition of existing buildings and development of 3 number dwellings 13-17 Parkside Road, Meanwood, LS6

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Members to give consideration for the demolition of existing buildings and refurbishment of part of 13 Parkside Road erection of two houses to form a terrace, with parking at 13-17 Parkside Road, Meanwood.

Members were informed that the application was brought to Panel due to its history. Relevant planning history was set out at paragraph 4.0 of the submitted report.

Members were advised that in respect of this proposal there had been no pre-application negotiations with the applicants and that additional graphics had been requested to more clearly identify the relationship between the single storey refurbishment unit and the existing dwelling at 9B Parkside Road in respect of the window that was considered to be adversely impacted during Plans Panel’s last consideration of this proposal. Graphics were shown to Members in respect of the window.

It was noted that this application sought to address the concerns of the Inspector.

Members were informed that the proposal included 9 parking spaces that would be screened by a wall. Members also noted that all other matters including layout were acceptable. Members were required to consider the impact on 9B Parkside Road.

Members were informed that details of levels to be submitted as part of conditions.

It was noted that a reduction to the single storey would reduce impact to 9B Parkside Road.

Members were advised of safety for 9B Parkside Road with the agreement of a Party Wall Act a separate agreement between applicant and neighbours. Members noted that the Party Wall Act would need to be agreed prior to the start of work.

Members requested that contractor’s vehicles be parked on site not on the narrow road.

 Members were advised that proposed materials to be used are currently identified as brick with tiled roof. Officers were of the view that stone should be used and this should include that already on site, at least for the front and the side of the buildings. Final details to be agreed under condition No. 3

RESOLVED – Members resolved to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report with an additional condition relating to construction management details to be submitted and agreed. Advice that existing stone was to be reused.

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for an appeal summary for three detached houses with detached garages to vacant land between 11 and 37 Church Drive, East Keswick, LS17

(Report attached)

Members were asked to note the report of the Chief Planning Officer following the appeal decision of the Inspector.

The Inspector had concluded that the development would harm the character of the Conservation Area and would harm the living conditions of the ground floor flat located within the flat block to the south side of the site. A copy of the appeal decision was appended to the submitted report.

RESOLVED – Members noted the appeal decision.

The next meeting of the North and East Plans Panel will be Thursday 11^th May 2017 at 1:30pm.

The next meeting of North and East Plans Panel will take place on Thursday 11^th May 2017 at 1:30pm.