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 of disclosable pecuniary interests.

Councillor J Bentley informed the Panel that he had been involved in discussions with regard to Agenda Item 8, Former site of West Park Centre, Spen Lane, west Park, Leeds and would leave the meeting during the discussion and voting on the application.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors P Davey and D Ragan.

Councillors P Gruen and N Walshaw were in attendance as substitutes.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which presents an application for variation of condition 3 (opening hours) of approval 16/03208/FU to allow opening hours Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 01:00, Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 02:00 and Sunday 10:00 to 00:00.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a variation of condition 3 (opening hours) of approval 16/03208/FU to allow opening hours Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 01:00, Friday and Saturdays 10:0 to 02:00 and Sunday 10:00 to 00:00 at Unit 2 Ledgard Way, Armley, LS12 2ND.

The application had been deferred at the January meeting to allow for further negotiation with the applicant for further negotiation to reduce hours of opening particularly throughout the daytime.

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:

·  Following the last meeting there had been a meeting with the applicant and owner of the Steam Complex.  The applicant was unwilling to amend the proposed hours of opening.

·  Further objections had been received on behalf of Ward Councillors and the local MP. These included the following:

o  There was a significant increase in opening hours and it was not possible to enforce these.

o  There should have been consultation with Ward Councillors and local people.

o  The premises was too near to the local primary school.

o  The area was in need of positive regeneration and the use of this site could prevent others from moving into the area.

o  The signage was too large and intimidating.

·  Further to concerns regarding the premises being close to the primary school and to housing, it was reported that the opening hours were later than those of the school opening and due to the location no-one would have to directly pass the site.

·  Following discussions with the applicant, the signage was likely to be changed.

·  Although there had not been any revisions to the application, it was recommended for approval as there were no legitimate planning reasons for refusal.

Following further discussion which included concerns regarding the condition of the outdoor smoking shelter and whether enforcement could be used to remove this, it was suggested that the application be approved with a temporary time limit.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted for a temporary 12 month period to allow monitoring of its operation and also subject to conditions outlined in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which presents an application for 50 dwellings with associated access, highway and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for 50 dwellings with associated access, highway and landscaping at the former site of the West Park Centre, Spen Lane, West Park, Leeds.

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:

·  The site abutted the West Park Conservation Area.

·  The existing vehicular access point would be closed with a new entrance to be formed off Spen Lane.

·  Most properties would have at least two off road parking spaces.

·  Affordable housing units would be spread throughout the site.

·  The majority of properties would be 2 storey with a small block of 2.5 storey properties.

·  Representations had been made from local Ward Councillors due to highway safety concerns and access to the site.

·  The site was brownfield and had been allocated for housing in the Site Allocation Plan.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

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

·  The area suffered from congestion during peak traffic times.  This caused rat running through other streets.

·  Following public consultation there had been a preference to have access to the site from the southern boundary.  The applicant had claimed this was not possible due to the location of water mains although Yorkshire Water had stated that this would not be a problem.

·  The plans submitted were not adequate.  There should be more public consultation to provide a better scheme for the site.

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

·  A traffic survey had been carried out on Spen Lane.  This development would generate less than two vehicles per minute during peak traffic periods. 

·  There were other issues that prevented an access to the southern part of the site including siting of electrical facilities and land ownership issues.

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

·  The proposed access arrangements had been assessed by Highways and were felt to be suitable.  To create an access from the Butcher Hill roundabout would potentially reduce safety there.

·  Concern regarding houses falling below national space standards.  It was reported that the few that didn’t were only just below guidelines. 

·  Ward Councillors had expressed a desire for a new children’s play area to be funded from off-site greenspace contributions.

·  The applicant would make arrangements for maintenance of on-site greenspace.  It was requested that this information should be made clear to any prospective buyer of property on the site due to associated costs.

·  There would be compensatory tree planting.

·  A request for the stone plaque that related to the former school on the site be retained within the development along with retention of the stone gate posts on site.

·  The applicant would be looking to commence works in April/May 2018 should the application be granted.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which presents an outline application for mixed use development.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented the Panel with a position statement for an outline planning application for a mixed use development at land off Fall Lane, East Ardsley.

Members were asked for their views on the acceptability of the proposals.  The site was currently vacant and had previously been used as railway sidings and had previously been identified as employment land.

The proposals were for 15 dwellings, 6 flats, a medical centre and retail unit with associated parking.

There was not proposed to be any contribution for off-site greenspace or affordable housing.  The proposals had been assessed by the District Valuer and it had not been considered viable to meet these obligations.  Members views were sought on this and also the housing mix and layout.

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

·  The proposed housing mix would consist of 10 x 4 bedroom dwellings and 5 x 3 bedroom dwellings.  It was suggested that 8 x bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom dwellings would be more appropriate.

·  The applicant had indicated that there was someone willing to occupy the health centre but as planning permission had not yet been granted was unable to give more detail.

·  Based on evidence from the Employment Land Review, this site was not considered to be needed or likely to be used as employment land.

·  A representative from the District Valuer explained the criteria used for the viability appraisal.  The viability had been calculated to leave a profit of 17.5%.  This would not be viable with affordable housing or greenspace contributions.

·  It was felt that there were too many one bedroom flats.

·  Concern regarding lack of school space in the rea and the overall sustainability of the site.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, the following was discussed:

o  The housing mix was not supported.

o  It was not accepted that the site was unviable and there was concern regarding the justification for a 17.5% profit.  It was felt that further information would be needed in relation to viability.

o  There was no support for the design or the layout and reference was made to avoiding the design mistakes of the adjoining site.  It was suggested that a site visit would be useful.  There were also concerns that car parking for the medical centre area would be inadequate.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.

Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 15 March 2016 at 1.30 p.m.