Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor R Finnigan.  Councillor T Leadley was present as substitute.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2013.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2013 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of ground and first floor of social club to form 6 flats.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of ground and first floor of social club to form 6 flats and car parking at Ash Grove Social Club, 16 Ash Grove, Leeds, LS6 1AY.  A similar application had been refused by the Panel at the meeting held on 28 February 2013.

Site plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further issues highlighted at the meeting included the following:

·  The application was for 2 x 1 bedroom flats and 4 x 2 bedroom flats.  These would be aimed at young professionals and would be less likely to be attractive for students due to lower occupation and higher costs.

·  The Panel was given a review of the planning history of the site and concerns regarding issues such as the conservation area, high density of student accommodation and a history of residential complaints.  It was felt that the application would be less harmful to residential amenity than if the social club was to re-open.

·   Although the proposed flats would not be aimed at the student market, there was no guarantee that they would not be occupied by students and it would be difficult to enforce any conditions that may prevent student occupation.

·  It was felt that the proposals were compliant with development plans.

·  Reference was made to objections to the application.

A local Ward Councillor and community group representative addressed the panel with concerns and objections to the application.  Issues raised included the following:

·  The application was virtually identical to the one refused by Panel in February 2013 and still had the same number of bed spaces.

·  The student population of Ash Grove was currently 80%.

·  Noise complaints linked to the social club had been dealt with and enforced.

·  The proposals would lead to increased activity and potential for further anti-social behaviour, noise disturbance and traffic.

·  It was felt that the proposals breached policies H6 and H15.

·  The proposals did not fit with the Authority’s duty for Health and Social Care to promote and improve public health.

The applicant and their representative addressed the Panel.  Issues raised included the following:

·  The flats would be designed for professional/young family accommodation with en-suite double rooms.

·  The proposals were in accordance with policy H15 and complemented policy H6.

·  The proposals mirrored a previous application that had been approved by Panel.

·  The flats would be built to the same standard as others that had won design awards.

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

·  The potential to have a condition not to let to students was felt too difficult to enforce.  It would also prohibit the letting to mature students who would be regarded as more suitable occupants for the properties.

·  Concern regarding the lack of consultation on this and previous applications – it was reported that there had been dialogue with South Headingley Community Association.

·  A previous planning permission had specified there to be no more than 26 bed spaces.  Should this application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for change of use of retail unit to estate agency.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of a retail unit to estate agency at 36 Town Street, Farsley, Pudsey.

Members of the Panel attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site photographs were displayed.

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

·  This was a retrospective application.  The premises were located within Farsley town centre on the primary shopping frontage.

·  Reference was made to representations made to the application.

·  It was reported that the application would not reduce the proportion of primary frontage units below the 30% laid out within policy SF7 and it was recommended to approve the application.

Further to comments from the Panel, it was reported that there would be changes to allow more flexibility in the future for the change of use of shop premises.  Concern was expressed regarding this application and the need to retain retail units in small town centres such as Farsley.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted and subject to conditions outlined in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension including canopy to front and patio area to rear.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension including canopy to front and patio to rear at 2 St Margaret’s Drive, Horsforth, Leeds.

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

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

·  The application had been brought to the Panel at the request of a Ward Councillor who was supportive of the proposal.  There had also been letters of support from adjacent properties.

·  There had been a previous planning consent for a two storey side extension that retained the ‘cat slide’ roof to the front of the property.

·  It was considered that the application would lead to a loss of character in the street scene and was contrary to household design guides and that the application should be refused on design grounds.

The applicant was invited to address the Panel and highlighted the following issues:

·  The plans had the support of neighbours.

·  Other properties in the neighbourhood had extended properties with the removal of cat slide roofs.

·  The property would only be extended by a further half metre with the removal of the cat slide roof.

·  The application offered more privacy to neighbouring properties.

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

·  The reason for refusal focussed on the front elevation of the property and not the size or design at the rear.

·  It was recognised that other properties had been altered in a similar fashion but the refusal did not prevent a possible extension of the property.

RESOLVED – That permission be refused as per the reasons outlined in the report.

Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 1.30 p.m.