Agenda and minutes

Due to the absence of the Chair, Members were asked to nominate a Chair for the meeting.  A nomination was made on behalf of Councillor J McKenna.

RESOLVED – That Councillor J McKenna be elected as Chair for 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. 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Gruen, E Nash and R Finnigan.

Councillors J McKenna, M Ingham and T Leadley were in attendance as substitutes.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2015 as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a residential development comprising of 54 apartments, 42 townhouses and retention of Rose Court Lodge.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a residential development comprising of 58 apartments, 38 townhouses and the retention of Rose Court Lodge.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this application.

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

·  This application did not include proposals for the Rose Court building.

·  The site fell within the Headingley Conservation Area.

·  Members were shown proposed access to the site.

·  It was proposed to convert the main school building to 36 apartments.

·  Changes to the outline planning application that was approved in September 2014 were explained.  These included retention of the school buildings to be converted to apartments and a change from 50 houses and 19 apartments to 38 houses and 58 apartments.

·  The Panel was informed of proposed alterations to the application should the NGT scheme be approved.  Should the NGT be approved this would enforce the removal of the stable buildings but would enable further landscaping and car parking.  Members were advised to approve the application either with or without the NGT scheme.

·  There would be a total of 108 dwellings on the site with the proposals for the conversion of Rose Court.

·  On site affordable housing would include 3 x 1two bedroom dwellings and 3 x 1 bedroom dwellings.

·  Members were made aware of further representations to the application which included concerns regarding car parking, the increase in the number of apartments and potential for student accommodation.

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

·  There would be either one or two parking spaces per house on the site with 38 parking bays and 5 garages for the apartments.  Car ownership across Headingley had been considered and it was felt that there would be a suitable level of parking space.

·  Concern that previous discussion had focussed on the provision of family housing and now the plans had been altered to include more apartments.

·  There would be conditions to retain and refurbish original features on the Rose Court building.

·  The developer’s intention was to make all the properties available for sale.

·  It was reported that at the outline planning stage it had been a speculative masterplan that had been approved and the increase in apartments was due to the proposal to retain the main school building.

·  The affordable housing units would be located within the main school building.  Members queried whether off site affordable housing would be a preferable option to bring other housing in the area back into family use.

·  Further concerns raised by Members included the following:

o  Reservations about car parking – there were problems elsewhere in the nearby area.

o  There were already too many flats and apartments in the area.

o  The plans were not in line with those previously considered.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for further consideration of the affordable housing mix, house type mix and car parking provision.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding and application for two single storey extensions to front and first floor infill extension.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for two single storey extensions to a front and first floor infill extension.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this application.

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

·  The surgery fell within a residential area.

·  Main concerns surrounded the pressure on car parking in the area.

·  There were currently 14 car parking spaces – the proposals would see this extended to 17.

·  There were traffic regulation orders in place to prevent parking by a nearby junction.

·  There was a recognised need for extra GP provision in the area.

·  It was recommended that the application be refused.

The applicant addressed the Panel.  Issues raised included the following:

·  The extension was not intended to attract additional visitors to the surgery but to help with the increase in registered patients over the previous two years.

·  To alleviate existing problems the surgery made use of a sister site in Rothwell, made use of extended hours and were considering electronic prescribing to prevent additional journeys to the surgery.

·  The extension was needed to serve a growth in the number of registered patients.

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

·  Parking problems at the adjacent Church site.

·  Population growth in the area.

·  Use of Traffic Regulation Orders – it was reported that these may not be easy to enforce.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per the officer recommendation outlined in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding the demolition of existing buildings and construction of single storey supermarket with associated works, car parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application regarding the demolition of existing buildings and construction of single storey supermarket with associated works, car parking and landscaping.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this item.

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

·  The application had been brought to the Panel at the request of local Ward Members.

·  The site neighboured residential areas – reference was made to the proximity of residential properties and demonstrated with photographs.

·  Access to the site had been agreed following negotiations with the applicant and there would be off site highway improvements.

·  The site was within the Rothwell Conservation area and the design of the store building would reflect this.

·  The site was currently used for industrial purposes and there was no restriction on the hours of use.

·  There would be landscaping to protect residential amenity.

·  Reference was made to the proposed hours of opening and delivery for the proposed store.  These were as follows:

o  Opening times - Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 22:00 and Sundays/Bank Holidays 10:00 to 17:00

o  Delivery times – Monday to Saturday 07:30 to 21:00 and Sundays/Bank Holidays 09:00 to 18:00

·  Members were informed of other representations that had been received both in support and objection to the application.

·  It was reported that condition 19 would be amended to allow lighting to remain on until 22:30 and condition 10 to amend car parking time to two hours.

A local Ward Councillor addressed the Panel with concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

·  Whilst the provision of a new store was welcomed to provide competition and job opportunities in Rothwell, it was felt that the hours of opening were not acceptable.

·  During negotiations with the applicant, there had been an indication that the proposed store would close at 20:00.  It was felt that support for the application had been based on these hours and not 22:00 as applied for.

·  Concern regarding the effect on amenity for nearby residential properties, many of which housed young families.

·  Concern that there had not been full communication with Planning Officers.

A developer of a nearby housing site addressed the Panel.  He informed the Panel that there would be 14 new houses on the nearby former primary school site and shared same concerns as expressed by the local community, particularly with regards to the opening hours.  It was suggested that the application be deferred to re-consider the hours of operation.

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns.  These included the following:

·  The proposed store building would only be 3 metres away from the back garden of her home.

·  Sunlight to their home would be obscured.

·  Parking spaces would be very close and would cause disturbance.

·  The applicant had not discussed the proposals with them.

The applicant’s representative addressed the panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The proposed store would give increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a mixed use development comprising 10 units A1/A2/A3 uses; laying out of access road, car parking, landscaping and boundary treatments.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a mixed use development comprising of 9 units of A1/A2/A3 uses, laying out of access road, car parking, landscaping and boundary treatments at the former Belgrave Works site, Town Street, Stanningley.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the application.

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

·  The site had been vacant for a number of years and previous buildings had been demolished in 2009/10.

·  The site had previously been used for light industrial and commercial purposes.

·  There were no proposals for hot food takeaways or public houses on the site.

·  Access arrangements were explained including pedestrian access.

·  Further representations to the application had been received from a neighbouring Ward Councillor with concerns the application would impact on retailers in other areas and that the site would be more suitable for housing.

·  Delivery and opening times for the site had been agreed with Environmental Health.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

·  Previous proposals had included a mix of residential and retail properties with a GP Surgery.  This would be preferable to the current proposals.

·  There was a string need for family housing in the area.

·  There were already enough shops locally and these proposals would be detrimental to existing shops.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The proposals would see the regeneration of a vacant and contaminated sight.

·  The site would be completed by the end of 2016 if the application was approved.

·  The proposals would create approximately 130 retail jobs and the Section 106 agreement would provide local construction opportunities.

·  An independent viability study had shown a potential loss of £2 million loss for the remediation of the site and development of housing.

·  Housebuilders and retail providers had not been willing to co-exist on the site.

·  The proposals were in compliance with planning policy.

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

·  The site was unallocated in the UDP and outline permission had previously been granted for residential development and a medical centre.

·  Due to the costs of remediating the contaminated land, the density of housing to make a scheme viable would be unsuitable.

·  The potential impact on nearby retail centres was within acceptable limits.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval and subject to conditions outlined in the report and Section 106 agreement.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the development of 12 houses with associated access road, parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the development of 12 houses with associated access road, parking and landscaping.

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

·  An application was previously considered by the Panel in March 2015 where Members requested that the possibility of converting the public house building into dwellings be explored.

·  Revised proposals were for the retention and conversion of the public house building to 4 flats and the development of 10 houses.

·  The proposals would give a mix of 2 bedroom flats and 3 bedroom houses.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

Members queried whether any of the signage relating to the public house would be retained.  It was reported that this could be considered as a condition to the application and all Members supported this.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per the officer recommendation and conditions outlined in the report.  Additional condition to ensure retention of at least one of the Railway Pub signs to retain historical connection with the areas former use.