Agenda and minutes

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

  There were no late items

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 interest.  However, in respect of Application 14/03109/OT – Former Miami Building Lotherton Way Garforth - Councillor Andrea McKenna brought to the Panel’s attention that she had previously commented on the application prior to being appointed to North and East Plans Panel in the 2015 Municipal Year, and for the avoidance of doubt about whether she had or had not a closed mind in relation to the application, she would leave the room during Panel’s consideration of this matter (minute 22 refers)

  Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Cleasby and Councillor Wilkinson

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the variation of condition 6 of approval 09/04265/FU to allow revised opening hours

(report attached)

  The Panel’s Lead Officer requested that the report be withdrawn from the agenda as there were some inaccuracies in the report, particularly in relation to policy matters

  RESOLVED  - That the report be withdrawn from the agenda and that a further report be submitted in due course

To approve the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015 be approved

  Applications 15/00771/FU and 15/00772/LI – Ledston Hall

  With reference to minute 10 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015, where Panel considered proposals for a residential scheme together with an energy centre at Ledston Hall, a Grade I Listed Building, further concerns were raised about the condition of the Listed Building and why it had been left to deteriorate.  The Chair advised that further information on this could be provided to Councillor R Grahame

  Preapp/15/00260 – Proposals for a Maggie’s Centre at St James Hospital LS9

  With reference to minute 12 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015, where Panel considered pre-application proposals for the development of a Maggie’s Centre close to the oncology unit at St James Hospital, concerns were raised about the parking issues associated with the proposals.  Members were informed that the formal application had been submitted and that a meeting involving Ward Members, Planning and Highways Officers would be arranged to consider the proposals and the impact on local parking conditions

  Application 15/00203/FU – 13/15 Parkside Road Meanwood LS6

  With reference to minute 8 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015, where Panel deferred determination of the application for part demolition of existing buildings and erection of three terraced houses with parking, to enable further discussions to take place on a reduced scheme, in view of Members’ concerns, the Panel’s Lead Officer advised that the applicant had now lodged an appeal against non-determination and therefore it would be for a Planning Inspector to determine the application.  In view of the issues raised by Panel when considering the proposal, clarity was sought on the grounds on which the Council would contest the appeal, with Panel agreeing this should be contested on the grounds of overdevelopment and overlooking

  56 The Drive Crossgates LS15 – update

  Members were informed that this application had last been presented to Panel in July 2014, where it was recommended for approval and that a Unilateral Undertaking which had been offered by the applicant, set out timescales for the building work to be carried out.  Members were informed that the timescale expired on 24^th June 2015 and that the work had not been completed, with the property currently not having a roof or front bay.  The Council would now serve notice to demolish the property in line with that Unilateral Undertaking, which required to demolish the house within two months.  After that time, if the works had not been completed, the Council could enter on to the land, carry out the works and seek reimbursement

  The Panel discussed the situation with the following issues being raised:

·  why the works had not been undertaken.  Members were informed that a period of 7 months had been agreed with the applicant; that there had been a considerable amount of activity on site recently but that unforeseen issues had arisen relating to the lift shaft  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Further to minute 11 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015, where Panel deferred determination of an application for a single storey side/rear extension for further negotiations to take place regarding the bulk of the extension and its impact on the neighbouring dwelling, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  Further to minute 11 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 28^th May 2015, where Panel deferred determination of an application for a single storey side and rear extension at 8 Kings Mount LS17, to enable discussions to take place with the applicant to seek to reduce the bulk of the extension, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Members were informed that the applicant wished to have the scheme determined as submitted, with the proposals being outlined again for Members’ information.  Whilst the recommendation before Panel was to grant planning permission, Officers had noted the concerns raised by Panel and had included a reason for refusal of the application, for Members’ consideration, subject to the deletion of the ‘from’ on the third line

  The receipt of a late representation objecting to the scheme from a local Ward Member was reported

  Members discussed the application with policy issues in respect of space about dwellings being raised and clarified by the Panel’s Lead Officer

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reason:

  The bulk and massing of the proposed extensions is considered too large and will result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring property by reason of loss of outlook and overbearing impact on their private rear garden space, these being amenities that occupiers of this property can reasonably expect to continue to enjoy.  As such the proposal is considered contrary to Policy P10 of the Core Strategy, saved policies GP5 and BD6 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 and to the advice given in the SPG Householder Design Guide and to advice in the National Planning Policy Framework on good design

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for the demolition of existing building and erection of development comprising foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking, means of access and associated works

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor A McKenna, withdrew from the meeting

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

  Officers presented the report which sought Panel’s approval in principle for outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing building – known as the Miami Building – and the erection of a foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking, means of access and associated works

  Details of alternative employment sites in the surrounding area were outlined, with Members being informed that the adjacent site was now proposed to be retained as Green Belt

  In relation to highways issues, a road safety audit would be required for the road junctions proposed in the revised highways scheme which had been submitted.  The highways scheme would also deliver benefits beyond the site

  Whilst an end user for the proposed supermarket had not been indicated, due to the size of the site, Officers were of the view that it would be suitable for any of the main four supermarket retailers and possibly for some of the other operators, i.e. the budget retailers, although a smaller footprint might be expected in that case

  The receipt of additional representations were reported, with the comments received from Councillor M Dobson; two local residents and the owner of several business premises on Main Street Garforth, being outlined to Panel

  If minded to agree the Officer’s recommendation, a further condition was proposed which related to sustainability in respect of construction and use of the development, going forward

  The Panel then heard representations from an objector who outlined his concerns about the application, which included:

·  viability

·  the sequential test which had been carried out and the robustness of this

·  the impact assessment which had been carried out and the view this was not realistic

·  loss of employment land

·  the demand locally for modern, industrial units

·  the existence of an alternative site for the proposals

The Panel then heard from the applicant’s agent who highlighted

issues relating to the proposals, which included:

·  that discussion and engagement on the scheme had been ongoing for two years

·  the extensive public consultation which had taken place on the proposals and the high levels of support for the scheme

·  the benefits the scheme would bring in terms of job creation; the regeneration of the site; more consumer choice and highway improvements

·  the lack of demand in the market for the existing industrial unit and the existence of more preferable and suitable industrial sites

The Panel discussed the application, with the main issues raised

relating to:

·  the retail impact assessment and whether this had been independently assessed.  Members were informed this had been assessed in-house

·  the likely tenant and whether Tesco was considering the site for a relocation of their existing store.  The applicant’s agent advised that positive discussions had taken place with two operators but for commercial reasons further details could not currently be provided.  The applicant’s agent stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of houses (C3) to form educational facilities and cultural learning centre (D1)

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day, although Members had only been able to access the premises at 15 Sandhurst Road

  The East Deputy Area Planning Manager presented the report which outlined the application which sought to retain the use of two mid-terraced dwellinghouses as a children’s educational and learning centre

  The retrospective application was outlined to Panel together with the recommended reasons for refusal of the application, as set out in the submitted report

  The receipt of further representations was reported, these consisted of a late objection sent on behalf of local residents; a 21 signature petition objecting to the proposals and additional information from the applicant’s agent referring to a 124 signature petition in support of the planning application; concessions to restrict attendance at the facility to children from within walking distance; reference to a fire safety audit letter from West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service relating to No. 15 Sandhurst Road and correspondence concerning requests to hire space for the facility in alternative premises.  Reference was also made to a conflict of interest in respect of one of the objectors

  Although Officers were of the view that the application should be refused as the properties were not considered suitable for the use, Officers were sympathetic to the use and considered there could be flexibility in terms of timescales for the cessation of the use and that assistance could be given to help find alternative accommodation for the facility

  The Panel heard from the applicant’s agent who provided information to Members, which included:

·  issues of noise and disturbance impacting on residential amenity and that these had not been evidenced

·  that an acoustic report could be provided

·  the willingness to only accept children who lived within walking distance

·  that the Council had not engaged with the applicant

·  that the service was needed and there was support for it

·  that a no car policy could be operated

Through questions by Members to the applicant’s agent, the following

additional information was provided:

·  that restrictions regarding attendance could be monitored by reference to the children’s addresses

·  that each room in the house was in use at all times when the premises were being used

·  that the premises were an out of school club and operated 2 sessions of 2 hours duration for 100 pupils per session

·  that the sound system in operation did cause some concern and that it was reasonable to require this not to be used

·  that the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was satisfied with the current situation, subject to a few alterations

The Panel then heard representations in support of the

recommendation from a local resident, who highlighted concerns, which included:

·  parking problems associated with the premises

·  the existence of alternative premises close by which could accommodate this use

·  the steep nature of the staircase to the upper floors of the premises with concerns relating to health and safety issues, especially fire safety concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for installation of ground mounted photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure

(report attached)

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

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report which sought approval for the installation of a 150kW ground mounted photovoltaic (pv) array consisting of 654 pv panels on a site located within the Green Belt and a Special Landscape Area (SLA), at Two Hoots Farm Harewood

  The policy context of the proposals was outlined, with Members being informed that the NPPF encouraged the delivery of renewable energy sources and that substantial weight should be given to that.  The site was also located in the Green Belt and as such was not a use which was considered to be acceptable, unless very special circumstances were demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriate development.  In this case also, the landscaping impact related to the SLA, which also carried weight

  The proposal was outlined and details of the proposed tree planting to help screen the panels was provided.  It was accepted that there would be clearer views into the site during the winter months, due to leaf loss, however the additional planting would create a natural woodland of varying heights over time

  In considering the application, Members were advised they would need to consider the harm to the Green Belt - taking into account that the proposal did impact on openness, however it was a relatively small scale scheme; views to it were limited and that additional screening would be provided.  In addition the permission was temporary for 25 years, this being the life span of the equipment.  Consideration should also be given to the renewable energy provided through the proposals and the Government’s focus on renewable energy as set out in the NPPF

  It was confirmed that Leeds Bradford International Airport had advised they had no objection to the application.  A correction was made to paragraph 10.6 of the submitted report, with Panel being informed that the applicant had submitted a statement to address the impact on the SLA

  The Panel discussed the application with the main issues being raised relating to:

·  whether the scheme would benefit from Government subsidies

·  work being undertaken on the mound.  Members were informed this was being investigated by the Council’s Minerals Team as the work being carried out on this had not received approval

·  impact of the proposals on the sheep

·  the need for further information to be provided to Panel about electricity generation from such schemes; how excess energy which was produced was sold to the National Grid and background information on solar panel technology, to better understand what was being proposed

·  the planning history of the site, with concerns that the whole history had not been included in the report before Panel and that this needed to be

·  the existence of a previous condition attached to a planning approval which specified the land was to be used for the spreading of slurry and the need for clarification of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Thursday 30^th July 2015 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  Thursday 30^th July 2015 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds