Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

  RESOLVED -  That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as designated as follows:

  The appendices to the main reports referred to in minutes 72 and 74 under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds they contain information relating to the financial or business of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the affairs of the applicant.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case, maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

  There were no formal late items, however the Panel was in receipt of a supplementary report in relation to application 14/04641/FU – Sweet Street and Manor Road Holbeck LS11, which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting (minute 74 refers)

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, however Councillor Leadley brought to the Panel’s attention in respect of application 14/03263/FU – land off west side of Kidacre Street Hunslet for temporary use as a travellers site – that he was the Chair of the Lee Fair Committee which organised the country’s oldest chartered fair and that he knew some of the residents at the site (minute 73 refers)

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G Latty, with Councillor J Procter attending as a substitute

To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 9^th October 2014

(report attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 9th October 2014 be approved

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development of up to 150 dwellings including means of access

(report attached)

  Plans, graphics and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The North and East Area Planning Manager presented a report on an outline application for the principle of development and access on 8.79 ha site, part of which was designated as Protected Area of Search (PAS) land and part being located in the Green Belt.  Although the application suggested up to 150 dwellings on the site, a proposed layout plan showed around 110 – 120 dwellings

  Members were informed that a key aspect of the development was flooding, with there being a history of flood events on the site. To mitigate against this, the developer was proposing to raise the levels of the central area of the site and provide a cellular storage system under the road which would release water at controlled rates into the nearby beck. It was also proposed to create flood storage areas adjacent to Collingham Beck to the south of the site and erect a flood wall opposite Crabtree Green.  Following the site visit earlier in the day, the North and East Area Planning Manager had sought further information from the Environment Agency about the flood mitigation measures and highlighted to Panel that whilst the proposed measures would ease the situation for residents of Millbeck Green and Crabtree Green, it did not constitute a flood alleviation scheme

  The report before Panel recommended the application be refused with seven reasons for refusal being suggested to Members.  In terms of the interim PAS policy, the site did not fulfil the criteria for early release of the site

  The receipt of two further representations was reported.  A detailed letter from the applicant was summarised to the Panel and concerns raised by Councillor Castle were outlined for Members’ information

  If minded to accept the reasons for refusal, an amendment to reason 1 was proposed, to remove ‘and scale’ from the sixth line down.  Also on reason 4, to correct a typing error to remove ‘access point’ from the fourth line down and replace with ‘development’

  The Transport Development Services Manager referred to the recent submission by the applicant of a more detailed plan of the access arrangements, which subject to further work, might be supported by Officers in principle.  Further discussions would also be required in respect of the junction at Harewood Road, which experienced queuing traffic.  The applicant had submitted a proposal to signalise the junction of School Lane/Mill Lane and the A58, and that discussions on this would be required.  Notwithstanding the recent revisions to the highways proposals the reason for refusal set out in the submitted report remained valid at this time

  Members discussed the proposals, with the main issues being:

·  the guidance set out in the NPPF which encouraged a plan-led system and the need to have regard to the Core Strategy and Site Allocations process

·  that the Council was committed to building homes in the correct location and this site was not suitable

·  the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

With reference to minute 48 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 18^th September 2014, where Panel supported in principle an application for residential development of up to 325 dwellings, access and associated works including open space and structural landscaping, including addition of pelican crossing to Spofforth Hill, subject to further consideration of specific matters, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer.

An exempt appendix which contains financial information accompanies the main report

(report attached)

  Further to minute 48 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 18^th September 2014, where Panel supported in principle an application for residential development of up to 325 dwellings, access and associated works including open space; structural landscaping and the addition of a pelican crossing to Spofforth Hill, subject to further consideration of matters raised at the meeting, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer.  An exempt appendix which contained financial information was appended to the main report and a copy of the report which was considered by Panel on 18^th September 2014 was also included in the information before Members

  Plans were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and outlined the information which had been received in respect of:

·  guarantees regarding off-site commuted sum and phasing

·  commitment to delivery of the balance of the EASEL 7 site

·  affordable housing provision

·  proposed changes deleting the right hand turn access to the site

·  pepper potting of affordable housing throughout the site

·  further discussions with Harrogate Borough Council in respect of an access on land within the Harrogate District to serve the development

Receipt of a further representation was reported which supported the

deletion of the right hand turn lane.  The Transport Development Services Manager advised that road safety audits had raised the fact there was the potential for accidents without the right turn and having considered this, Highways considered that the right turn lane was desirable but not essential.  Members were also informed that if the right hand turn lane was deleted, the Heads of Terms should include setting aside of costs for the provision of the right hand turn lane for up to 3 years post completion, in the event this was required

  At this point, having previously resolved to exclude the public, the Panel considered the financial information contained in the exempt appendix in private.   To respond to questions and comments from Members, a representative of the District Valuer (DV) was in attendance

  The Panel considered the financial viability information, with the main areas of discussion being:

·  the delivery of EASEL 7 and the conflicting information which existed about the developer’s willingness to commence on the completion of this stalled site

·  the viability and profit levels for the EASEL 7 site with and without the cross subsidy from the site at Spofforth Hill

·  the legal agreement tying Bellway into the delivery of 83 houses on the EASEL 7 site and the strength of this

·  the build out rates for the Spofforth Hill site

Following these discussions the public were readmitted and Members

considered the other elements of the report, which included:

·  that the scheme could not be supported by Local Members; that this was likely to be a minority view of the Panel and therefore the best outcome for local residents had to be sought

·  the extent of tree loss and possible numbers of trees at risk due to the proposals to accommodate a wider footway and whether this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for a temporary use as residential site for Gypsies and Travellers with 10 pitches for 12 months

(report attached)

  Plans and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Officers presented the report which sought retrospective approval for the use of land at Kidacre Street as a residential site for gypsies and travellers, comprising 10 pitches for temporary use for a period of 12 months

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the level of facilities on site and that even on a temporary site, better facilities should be provided.  The Deputy Area Planning Manager advised that the level of investment provided had to be balanced against the length of stay on the site

·  the proximity of the gasworks to the pitches.  Members were informed that the proposals were acceptable to the Health and Safety Executive and that the pitches were located in the middle zone of the site

·  the complaints received from a nearby business and the management of the site

At this point, Councillor P Gruen brought to the Panel’s attention that

as Executive Board Member for Neighbourhoods, Planning and Personnel, he was aware of the issues involved in the provision of suitable sites

·  the need to make provision for gypsies and travellers; the time spent on finding a suitable site and the reassurances which have been built into the proposals in respect of a behaviour policy and rigorous management

·  the length of time taken for this site to come forward

·  the possibility of extending the timescale for the permission.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that a longer period of time for the grant of the application would provide a justification for improving the ablution facilities on the site and although there would be a need to look at wider transport considerations in respect of HS2 and HS3, it was unlikely that a new railway would be delivered before 2030.  Members were informed that if Panel was minded to support the application and extend the timescale, there would be a need to reconsult on the proposals

·  that the site fully complied with policy H7 and was small in size at 10 pitches

·  the need to look again at sites which could be available for gypsy and traveller site use

·  the need for additional screening to the site and in the event the timescale for use was extended, that consideration should be given to extending the rent-free period for the School of Motoring

·  that suitable small sites were preferable to larger encampments

·  the need to reinforce the agreement in respect of behaviour and for residents to understand the consequences of  any breach of the behaviour agreement

·  the need for twice weekly visits to the site by Gypsy and Traveller Services LCC to continue even if a permission was extended

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval for a period of 3 years

 to the Chief Planning Officer, subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and an improvement to the ablution facilities to be provided .  To note Members’ comments about the enforcement of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Further to minute 198 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 5^th June 2014, where Panel was presented with pre-application proposals for a development at Sweet Street LS11, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in relation to proposals for a mixed-use, multi-level development comprising the erection of 4 new buildings with 744 residential apartments, 713 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A5, B1, D1, D2 use classes), car parking, landscaping and public amenity space

(report attached)

  Further to minute 198 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 5^th June 2014, where Panel considered pre-application proposals for a residential-led mixed use development at Sweet Street, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of the proposals.  An exempt supplementary report which provided financial viability information had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting

  Plans, drawings, photographs, graphics and sample materials were displayed at the meeting. It was noted that following the pre-application presentation in June 2014, Members had visited two residential schemes built by the applicant in Salford and Manchester

  Officers presented the report and informed Members that revisions to the scheme had been made, with the 13 storey building being reduced to 11 storeys in height and the 12 storey block now being proposed to be sited opposite The Mint building. The lower buildings would be sited to the south of the public realm to maximise sunlight in these areas, with the taller blocks around the other edges of the public space

  In terms of unit sizes, Members were informed these were as had been viewed in Manchester and Salford; the number of studios within the scheme had been reduced and the amount of 3 bed units had been increased from 5 to 10

  The proposed materials would be brickwork, concrete, acid-etched screening and bronzed balcony railings

  At this point, having previously resolved to exempt the public the Panel considered the financial information contained in the exempt supplementary report, in private.  A representative of the District Valuer was in attendance to respond to Members’ queries and comments

  The main issues discussed in respect of the exempt information included:

·  the reasons why the development was unviable

·  the nature of the development, in that following construction it would be sold to a single investor and the units subsequently leased, so generating profit

·  that details of who purchased the land should be provided

·  the approach taken by the DV to financial viability assessments, and concerns that this varied across the 3 plans panels.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that training by the DV would be arranged for Members of Plans Panels

·  that developing the site for residential use would ease pressure on greenfield sites

·  the differences between developing to level 3 or level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the need for better explanations to be provided in reports. However, Level 4 should be the objective in accordance with the Leeds Standard

·  that the proposals would not ease the pressure on accommodation for existing residents within the City and Hunslet Ward

·  the need for high quality to be provided on a scheme in this location which would ensure the desirability of the units, but not at a cost to the Council in terms of reduced S106 contributions

·  the extent of what could be taken into account when considering financial viability

·  the need for figures to be provided on the value of the development when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on pre-application proposals for 26, six sheet adverts and to receive a presentation on the proposals on behalf of the applicant

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor J Procter left the meeting

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting. A Members site visit to some of the proposed locations around the City Centre had taken place earlier in the day

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the emerging proposals for the development of a Leeds City Council Advertisement Portfolio in partnership with Clear Channel UK Ltd and received a presentation from a representative of the company

  Members were informed that originally 40 sites around the City Centre had been proposed for the location of the advertisements, with this being scaled down to 26. These would be digital displays

  Clear Channel UK Ltd was an experienced national company with a presence in Leeds since the late 1960s.  The contract between the company and the Council was based on providing revenue to the Council

  A design engineer had been employed, who had successfully produced the wayfinding scheme around the City Centre

  The siting of the units had been considered carefully with regard being given to highways safety and pedestrian flows as well as the location of the displays in relation to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.  To avoid impacting on pedestrian flow, where possible, the units would be sited in line with existing street furniture

  Images of each site with an indicated siting of the display unit were shown to the Panel

   Members discussed the proposal and commented on the following matters:

·  the size of the units, whether these could be varied and their proximity to existing street furniture which increased the cluttered effect already seen on some City Centre streets

·  the need to understand the benefits of the scheme to the Council

·  the need for photomontages of each site showing the display unit in situ, to enable the Panel to better understand the proposals

·  the length of time the units would remain part of the street scene, with the Clear Channel representative stating that 10 years was the standard length of time for such an investment, although 15 – 20 years was not uncommon

·  the content of the advertisements, particularly in the context of Leeds being a child-friendly city.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that in planning terms it was not possible to influence the content of images; that would be a matter to be dealt with in the contract.  Members were informed that advertisements would be sold in packages across the country, so the same advertisement would not appear on each site.  Furthermore there was the opportunity to use the displays to provide public information/emergency information, with details of a missing child being displayed on such units recently in Edinburgh

·  concerns about specific locations which were proposed, including outside Dyson’s Chambers; Sovereign Street and along The Headrow, where several units would be visible together and the need for each site to be evaluated

In response to the specific questions raised in the report, the Panel

provided the following responses:

·  that Members required further information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Thursday 20^th November 2014 at 1.30om in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  Thursday 20^th November 2014 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds