Agenda and minutes

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.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors J Bentley and R Wood.

Councillors B Cleasby and B Flynn were in attendance as substitutes.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2017

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regardings an application for the change of use and alterations of former public house to form house in multiple occupation

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented reasons for refusal to an application for the change of use and alterations of a former public house to form a house in multiple occupation at the Omnibus, Throstle Road North, Middleton, Leeds.

The application had been considered at the previous Panel meeting when it had been resolved to overturn the officer recommendation to approve the application.

RESOLVED – That the reasons for refusal and report be noted.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline planning application for the residential development of up to 208 dwellings and associated works with all matters reserved save for access from King Street.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an outline planning application (all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within the site) for the residential development of up to 208 dwellings and associated works on land at Pitty Close Farm, Wakefield Road, Drighlington.

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

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

·  Members were asked to consider the principle of development and means of access.

·  There would be a singular access to the site via King Street.

·  Objections had been received from local residents, Ward Councillors and the local MP.  There had also been a petition against the proposed development.  Objections included impact on infrastructure, loss of greenbelt land and highways impacts.

·  The site had been identified as a Phase 3 housing site in the Site Allocation Plan.

·  A pedestrian crossing would be funded by the applicant for access to the site.

·  There was not capacity in local Primary Schools but could be in the wider area.  CIL requirements may be need for the necessary provision.

·  The application was supported by a flood risk assessment.  Flood risk would be managed on site with a detenuation basin.

·  Public rights of way affected by the proposals would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·  It was considered that any adverse impacts caused by the proposals were not of enough significance to prevent bringing the site forward for housing.  There would be provision for affordable housing and a full CIL contribution.

·  It was recommended that the application be approved.

A local Parish Councillor addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  The proposals would have an enormous impact on amenity and existing services,

·  There were not enough school places.

·  There was not enough capacity in local GP surgeries and dentists.

·  Drainage could not cope at present and local water courses had been contaminated with sewage.

·  The village became gridlocked with traffic whenever there were problems on the local motorway network.

·  Drighlington should remain a village and not be joined up to Gildersome.  These proposals would account for a 10% increase in the size of the village.

·  The site was currently used by local people for walking and horse riding.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel and answered questions from Members.  The following was discussed:

·  The site had been safeguarded for development since 2001.

·  The applicant was willing to make CIL contributions in respect of school places.

·  A building rates of 40 houses per year was hoped to be achieved although this could be affected by market forces.

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

·  It was recognised that the existing sewers could not cope with heavy rainfall and this had been reported to Yorkshire Water.  This site would not use the same sewerage system and would not exacerbate existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of office building and part demolition of HGV workshop, erect two storey office building, alterations to the façade and openings on the HGV workshop, new ramped link to the applicants neighbouring property and landscaping works

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of an office building and part demolition of HGV workshop, erection of two storey office building, alterations to the façade and openings on the HGV workshop, new ramped link to the applicant’s neighbouring property and landscaping works.

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

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

·  The site was situated behind residential properties off Bradford Road.

·  The site was previously used for manufacturing and was in the ownership of the operator of the adjacent site who wished to extend operations across both sites.

·  It was proposed to install an access ramp between the sites.

·  Siting of the proposed office block.

·  Details of landscaping including the provision of acoustic fencing.

·  It was recommended that parts of the office building would have angled/obscured glazing to prevent overlooking of residential properties.

·  Objections to the application included noise, light and air pollution.  There were also concerns regarding the use of a proposed courtyard area.

·  The applicant was recommended for approval.

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  There should be restrictions on the hours of operation and the types of vehicle using the site.

·  Concern regarding pollution from vehicles using the site and impacts on health.

·  Noise and vibration from vehicle using the site with up to 40 HGV vehicles using the site on a daily basis.

·  Concern that the proposals would mean the operator surrounded the objector’s property effectively making it a compound.

·  The area was now mainly residential.

·  The proposals prevented the objector from developing the rear of their property for outdoor use.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following was discussed:

·  The site had extant planning permission and the operator had been present at the adjacent site for over 100 years.

·  The proposals would not mean an increase in staff members at the site.

·  The existing buildings were no longer fit for purpose.

·  The ramp would enable movement within the site and prevent vehicles using the highway in front of the neighbouring residential property.

·  The proposed office building was of modern design and would replace a dilapidated building.

·  Use of the courtyard would be strictly controlled by the operator.

·  Due to the nature of the business at certain times of year, a 24 hour operation would be necessary.

·  Outdoor smoking areas would be at the rear of the office block away from residential properties.

·  The proposed office block was further away from the objector’s property than the current building.  It would not be feasible to move it any further back as it would affect movement of vehicles within the site.

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

·  It was suggested that there should be conditions to the use o fthe courtyard area.

·  There was a 20 metre gap  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of a dwelling into a 4 bedroom house of multiple occupancy (Class Use C4)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of a dwelling house (C3 use class) to a 4 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (C4 use class) at 20 Conference Road, Armley, Leeds, LS12 3DX.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and photographs and plans of the property were shown and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

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

·  There were no planned external or internal changes to the property.  Internal layout plans were displayed.

·  Objections had been received from local residents and Ward Members due to the impact of HMOs in the area.

·  Armley did have a high concentration of HMOs but this location was considered to be less concentrated with 4 registered HMOs on Conference Road.

·  The application was recognised for approval.  Internally the property met all specifications and it was anticipated that use as a HMO would only have the same impact as that of a family dwelling.

·  It was proposed that there would be conditions in respect of waste collection and cycle storage.

Local residents addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  Although there were only 4 registered HMOs on Conference Road, another 5 properties had been converted to bedsits.  This application would take the number of HMOs/bedsits on Conference Road to be a total of 25% of properties and would further affect the balance of the local community.

·  The area which had a higher concentration of HMOs in Armley was only 500 metres away.

·  Conversion to a HMO would cause further problems with parking in the area.

·  Noise disturbance from existing HMOs.

·  Concern that there had been an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime in the area following the conversion of such properties.

The applicant addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

·  The applicant was a member of the Residential Landlords Association and managed six other HMOs.

·  This application would provide affordable housing.

·  Issues of parking were recognised but the tenants in these kinds of properties tended not to have vehicles.

·  The applicant had not had complaints from other properties with regard to noise.  The applicant had a strict vetting process and did not rent rooms to students.

·  It was felt that the number of waste bins at the property would be in line with that of a family dwelling.

·  All tenants would have individual tenancy agreements.

·  Partners of tenants would be limited to staying three nights per week.  Permission was required for extended stays.

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

·  There was only limited on street parking on Conference Road.  Occupants of HMOs were less likely to be vehicle owners.

·  Concern regarding the number of HMOs and converted bedsit properties on Conference Road,

·  Concern regarding crime levels in the area.

·  Concern regarding the loss of community cohesion where there was a concentration of HMOs.

·  A proposal was made to refuse the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Thursday, 7^th September 2017 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 7^th September 2017 at 1.30 p.m.