Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Caroline Gruen.  Councillor David Congreve was present as substitute.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2013

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 Macrh 2013 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an outline application for residential development at land off Royds Lane, Lower Wortley.  Members were reminded that the application had been deferred by Panel in February 2013 to allow for further information to be sought in relation to the use of the land for waste management and to get further information in relation to the education contribution part of the Section 106 agreement.

Members were shown photographs and plans of the site.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The full amount for the education contribution for this site would usually be £740,000 with over £500,000 being used towards primary school provision.  Due to the nature of the site and additional costs involved the developer had offered £300,000 towards the education contribution.  It was reported that should there be market improvements then a further contribution could be made possibly against a further contribution to affordable housing.

·  Since the previous meeting, the applicant had submitted a case for the overriding need to develop the site as opposed to the use of the site for waste management.  Only a small part of the site had been allocated for waste management and it had never been used for this purpose.  The permission for waste management had only 11 months left to run and the site was classed as brownfield and had a previous permission for residential development.

·  Extraction of coal – coal had been extracted at the site in the past.  The remaining coal was of poor quality and would be too costly to extract.

·  Members were asked to defer and delegate the application for approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

In response to Members comments, the following issues were discussed:

·  Concern regarding the reduced education contribution, particularly due to the lack of available school places.

·  An appropriate trigger figure would be agreed with the developer and if this was reached then further money towards affordable housing, or an education contribution would be available.

·  Officers did have access to financial details as part of the negotiations with the applicant.

·  The need to develop brownfield sites – whilst it was accepted there was a significant shortfall in the education and affordable housing contributions; there were other regeneration benfits with this proposed scheme.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the conditions specified in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application to form a hot food takeaway with flue to rear.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of a ground floor office to form a hot food takeaway with a flue to the rear at 151A Otley Old Road, LS16 6HN

Photographs and proposed plans for the site were shown at the meeting.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The proposed flue would not be visible from Otley Road and diagrams of how the flue would appear were displayed.

·  The change of use of the premises would have some impact on amenity including fumes and odours from cooking and some noise disturbance from the extraction unit and people attending the premises.

·  Objections received from adjoining properties which were for used for commercial purposed did not have the same impact on amenity as residential properties would.

The panel heard representations in objection to the application on behalf of residents and the adjoining commercial premises.  These included the following:

·  A fast food takeaway was not within the keeping of the area.

·  The rear car park was used by the occupant health practitioner and shared access to this was frequently blocked.

·  Noise disturbance would increase.

·  The car park adjacent to the premises was full on an evening.

·  There would be an increase in rubbish and this may attract vermin.

·  A takeaway would be damaging to the health clinic and dental practice.

·  Vehicular access for the disabled would be impaired.

·  Traffic congestion could be caused.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

·  Concern that the application did not meet with National Planning Policy Framework.

·  Car parking – there would be no customer parking at the rear of the premises; there was room to park on the road at the front and there had not been any objection from highways.

·  The applicant planned to provide a delivery service.

·  The hours of opening would not exceed those of the neighbouring restaurant.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the conditions specified in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a residential development of 143 houses and 12 flats; restoration of the lodge to form 1 house; alterations and extensions to hospital building to form residential care home comprising 20 apartments and 35 bedspaces (C2 Use); alterations and extensions to former Ida Wing building to form 56 extra care housing units (C3 Use)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to the application for a residential development of 143 houses and 12 flats; restoration of The Lodge to form 1 house; alterations and extensions to hospital buildings to form residential care home comprising 20 apartments and 35 bedspaces (C2 use); alterations and extensions to former Ida Wing building to form 56 ‘extra care’ housing units (C3 use) at the former Cookridge Hospital, Silk Mill Way, Cookridge.

The application had been brought back to the Panel at the request of the applicant to change the Section 106 package that was previously agreed.

Site plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  Development at the site had commenced but had now come to a halt whilst the issue surrounding the Section 106 package could be resolved.

·  It was reported that the potential operator of the ‘extra care’ housing units would not be able to deliver this at social rent levels as opposed to sub market rent levels and the Panel was asked to consider a proposal to change the Section 106 agreement to this effect.

·  It was felt that this was still a good arrangement for the provision of affordable housing and met the strategic needs of the city and the area.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Support would be available for people on benefits.

·  Catering facilities in extra care housing were optional.

·  There was a recognised need for this kind of provision in the area and Members spoke in support of the application.

RESOLVED – That the proposed changes to the affordable housing element of the Section 106 package be agreed.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application to discharge/amend a planning obligation under Section 106a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 247 houses and flats.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application to discharge/amend a planning obligation under Section 106a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relation to planning permission ref no 06/01712/FU, for 247 houses and flats at land off Station Lane, East Ardsley.

It was reported that the applicant was looking to re-negotiate the Section 106 agreement.  This would reduce the overall sum from £1,480,000 to £350,000 and the applicant had submitted a detailed financial assessment.  It was estimated that the scheme would make a loss of £3,000,000 and the reduced Section 106 package would enable continuation of the development.

Further issues discussed in relation to the application included the following:

·  Asset management had studied the financial assessment.

·  Ward Members had been consulted and were supportive of the proposals.

·  The pressure on local schools and the need to secure the education contribution of the Section 106 agreement.

·  It was suggested that it would have been useful for the Panel to have seen the financial assessment.

RESOLVED -

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a position statement on the Little London PFI Regeneration Project.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer gave the Panel a position statement on the Little London PFI regeneration project.

It was reported that following a Government spending review, the community hub proposals for the development would no longer be included in the project and the Panel was informed of revised proposals thst would include community facilities, retail provision and expansion of Little London Primary School.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a position statement on the development of a solar farm.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a position statement for planning application 13/00874/FU for the development of a solar farm on the site of Haigh Hall Farm, Batley Road, Tingley.

Some Members had visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed.

Issues highlighted in relation to the proposals included the following:

·  Due to the value of the installation there would be a need for fencing and CCTV.  The Panel was shown photographs of similar installations.

·  There would be supplementary planting to screen the fencing but this would not have to over shadow the installation.

·  The installation would not be visible from homes on Batley Road.

·  Proposals for vehicle movement during the development of the site.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

·  Renewable energy was encouraged to be viewed as positively as possible within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·  The scheme would provide enough energy to power up to 2,500 homes which was comparable to 5 wind turbines.

·  The Highways Agency had been contacted regarding the possibility of glint and glare for traffic travelling on the M1.  No concerns had been received.

·  It was requested that the fencing and CCTV be as unobtrusive as possible.

·  Members supported the proposals and agreed that the application should be deferred to officers subject to further discussion with Ward Members and the Panel Chair should significant objections be made.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 1.30 p.m.