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 interests however Councillor M Coulson informed the Panel of sicussions he had been involved in regarding Agenda Item 7, Residential Development for 164 houses and apartments at Cemetery Road, Pudsey.

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

Councillor G Wilkinson was in attendance as substitute for Councillor R Wood.

To confirm as a correct record, the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 3^rd April 2014.

(Copy attached)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd April 2014 be confirmed as a correct record.

Regarding the application at Victoria Park, it was reported that there had been an approach from the Department of Communities and Local Government regarding a possible call-in at the request of a local MP.  There had not been any other outstanding objections or objections from Sport England.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which seeks approval of the  landscaping plan and discharge the condition in respect of Application No. 06/01130/FU residential development for 164 Houses and Apartments at Cemetery Road, Pudsey, LS28 7HH.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to application 06/01130/FU – residential development for 164 houses and apartments at Cemetery Road, Pudsey and a proposal to discharge a condition – application 14/00720/COND.

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

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

·  Planning permission for the site had been granted in 2008.

·  The condition sought to be discharged related to the footpath at the side of the site.  Original plans had included a 1.5 metre high fence with a hedgerow.  This had not been carried out and the fencing used was higher and closer to the public footpath which did not leave room for a hedge.  There was also a palisade fence still on site.

·  Following further negotiations with the developer, it was proposed that the palisade fence would be removed and the additional higher fencing should remain.  The entire footpath would be resurfaced and there would be cobbles set in between the path and the fence.  There would also be repairs to existing walls.

·  The proposals were supported by Public Rights of Way and the Architectural Liaison Officer.  There had been some concerns expressed by the Conservation Officer.

·  The proposals would not disturb those who had already moved in on site.  To go back to the original proposals would involve people having to alter gardens and move items including decking and sheds.

Further to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Although it was regrettable that the original plans had not been adhered to, it was generally felt that the proposals were reasonable taking into account the impact on residents should the original proposals be enforced.

·  There was some concern that the developers had not complied with the original plans.

·  The improved footpath would be easier to maintain.

·  Landscaping of the undeveloped land – it was reported that this could be negotiated and Ward Members be involved.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved in principle but the decision be deferred for further consideration of the maintenance issues related to an area of land that lies between the footpath and the housing site.  If issues referred to could be resolved, the item did not need to return to Panel.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the change of use of outbuildings to Ice Cream Shop/ Parlour at 173 Smalewell Road, Pudsey, LS28 8HT (Application No. 14/01245/FU)

 (Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of an outbuilding to an Ice Cream Shop/Parlour at 173 Smalewell Road, Pudsey, LS28 8HT.

Site plans and photographs were displayed.

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

·  The only outside alteration to the building would be the inclusion of a serving hatch.

·  Reference to green belt and retail policies.

·  Representation from local residents with concerns regarding vehicular movement and potential for growth.

·  Conditions to the application.

·  It was a very small development and felt to be compliant with policy.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per the officer recommendation and conditions outlined in the report.  Additional condition to ensure the building can only be used for business purposes.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the change of use to betting shop (A2), installation of new shop front, two air conditioning condenser units, one satellite dish and one TV aerial at 7 Cliffe Court, Yeadon LS19 7YU (Application number 14/01096/FU) and one internally illuminated fascia sign and one non-illuminated projecting sign at 7 Cliffe Court, Yeadon LS19 7YU (Application number 14/01094/ADV)

 (Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to the following applications at 7 Cliffe Court, Yeadon:

·  Application 14/01096/FU - Change of use to betting shop (A2), installation of new shop front, two air conditioning condenser units, one satellite dish and one tv aerial.

·  Application 14/01094/ADV - One internally illuminated fascia sign and one non-illuminated projecting sign.

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

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

·  The premises were previously used as a travel agent.

·  It was not felt that the proposals would have an impact on the retail function of the area.

·  Details of internal layout and signage were explained.

·  It was recommended that the proposals be approved.

The Panel was informed of a recent announcement from the Department of Culture, Media and Support and the Department of Communities and Local Government regarding gambling protection and control.  A consultation was to be undertaken and there was a proposal that all betting shops would have to receive planning approval. 

An objector to the application addressed the meeting.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The application for signage was not within the fitting of the conservation area.

·  Should the application be approved then there should be condition that the applicant reflects the history and cultural heritage of the area.

·  There were already 2 betting shops in the area and to add another would be superfluous and unnecessary.

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

·  There would be difficulties justifying a refusal based on the grounds that it reduced the shopping function of the area.

·  The premises would also be subject to licensing permission.

·  The air conditioning units would be located to the side of the premises.

·  Concern that to approve the proposals would not be consistent with policy and the cumulative impact of too many betting shops.

Members voted against the officer recommendation to approve the application with the regard to the change of use to betting shop (A2), installation of new shop front, two air conditioning condenser units, one satellite dish and one tv aerial and were subsequently asked to provide reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That Application 14/01906/FU be refused.  Officers to bring report to next available Panel with reasons for refusal based upon proposals not contributing to vitality and viability of town centre and over concentration of such uses in the area.

(2)  That Application 14/01094/ADV be deferred pending the outcome of Application 14/01906/FU at the next available Panel.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which provides an update on progress to redevelop the former Royal Park Primary School site at Queens Road, Leeds, LS6 1NY.

 (Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided the Panel with an update on the former Royal Park School site and the progress to develop the site for Greenspace.

It was reported that the only building remaining on the site was the former caretaker’s house and there was a possibility of this being used by West Yorkshire Police.  There were proposals for the site to become a permanent Greenspace and discussions had been held with local Ward Members.  There would be a public consultation event in June.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which introduces a

Pre-Application Presentation for amendmants to the consented scheme for the redevelopment of the former High Royds Hospital site, Menston. Including areas of new residential development within the Greenbelt, consented Commercial Units to become residential and residential conversion of the Central Administration Block in place of the Approved Assisted Living Units at the former High Royds Hospital site, Bradford Road, Guiseley

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a pre-application presentation for amendments to the consented scheme for the redevelopment of the former High Royds Hospital, Menston including areas of new residential development within the green belt, consented commercial units to become residential and residential conversion of the central administration block in place of the approved assisted living units.

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

Issues highlighted regarding the pre-application included the following:

·  The site had been developed under permission approved in 2005.

·  Proposed changes to the original plans included the change of use of some of the existing buildings and erection of new buildings.

·  The proposals for an assisted living scheme in the administration block had not attracted an operator and there were fresh proposals to develop this into houses and flats.

·  Viable operators had not been found for other parts of the proposed development for shops, a GP practice and a crèche.

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

·  The proposals were heritage led and not building led.

·  The revised proposals would have less impact in the terms of demolition and new building.

·  English Heritage were supportive of the proposals for the administration building.

·  Historical importance of the site and buildings – the proposals aimed to re-develop the existing listed buildings rather than demolish and re-build

·  Members were shown a photo montage of the original proposals against the new proposals – the new proposals were less obtrusive and did not obscure views as much as the original.

In response to Members questions, the following was discussed:

·  Use of the ballroom for community use – this would be consulted on and existing residents would have to be taken into consideration.

·  Design of new buildings – these would be kept within the character of the area and in keeping with the listed heritage.

·  Provision of a GPs surgery – there had been a marketing exercise and some initial offers that were not viable.

·  Sports and social facilities – discussion was ongoing and there were proposals for a new building on site which would also be used as a pavilion for cricket and football changing rooms.

·  Affordable housing – this was being done in 4 phases, the first two were complete and there were approximately 15 to be completed on the third phase.

The Panel heard representations from a local Ward Councillor and Members of the Public.  Issues raised included the following:

·  Concern regarding the none delivery of employment opportunities, a crèche, shops and GP practice.  Alternative solutions would be preferred.

·  Concern that the proposals would join onto the boundary with Bradford.

·  It was hoped that the ballroom could be restored and open for use to the wider community.

·  The importance for new building to be of a quality design.

·  Concern that some of the existing buildings were falling into a state of disrepair.

·  Concern regarding the loss of Greenbelt land.

·  Provision of highways measures, traffic lights  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 29^th May 2014 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 1.30 p.m.