Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking the extension of time limit for implementation of application 06/02738/FU relating to the residential redevelopment at 45 St Michaels Lane, Headingley

(Report attached)

Site plans, layout plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Officers outlined the development proposals previously approved by the Planning Inspectorate in 2007. Officers reported receipt of 67 letters of objection, including letters of representation from Leeds HMO Lobby and local ward Councillor J Monaghan.

The Panel were advised of the 2009 Government guidance on applications for extensions of time for implementation of extant permissions, particularly whether anything had materially changed since the grant of permission.  Officers stated they had considered the application having regard to:

• the Government advice
• against the UDP criteria
• the Inspectors comments at the appeal,
• the outcome of the “Glassworks” appeal where the Inspector had regard to the disturbance likely to be caused by student resident of the 256 bed development to existing residents in traditional family housing. It was noted the Inspector at the St Michaels appeal also considered the issue of disturbance but had come to a different conclusion as this application was very different. Officers therefore felt there was no choice but to recommend approval of this application to extend the time limit for the permission.

Officers did acknowledge local feeling that there was a surplus of student accommodation but this could be attributed to the uptake of new purpose built student accommodation leaving houses previously let to students vacant and potentially available for family occupation.

The Panel discussed the following matters

-  Expressed dismay at the Inspectors decision in 2007.

-  Location of the site within the heart of Headingley adjacent to traditional semi detached houses. Members still believed the proposal was too high, overbearing and over dominant for this small site.

-  Concern at the impact on local highways network

-  Noted comments that some student housing developments were empty

-  Expressed the view there had been a material change due to the increase in and availability of purpose built accommodation

The Panel heard representation from Mr P Downing, an objector who stated that families were moving back into the area and this new development would have a detrimental impact on the improving housing mix. He expressed concern over highways issues; particularly the inclusion of a gated access to Back Broomfield Crescent which he believed would be used as a general pedestrian route by students. Mr Downing stated that 1000 students attending classes in the new Carnegie development would add to pressures on the area.  

The Panel then heard from Mr S Grundy, agent for the applicant who addressed the contents of the Government Guidance and stated that this development would continue the current trend of releasing old style student lets back to family housing. Mr Grundy confirmed the applicants would agree to the gated access to Back Broomfield Crescent being used only as emergency service access and being locked at all other times.

Members further discussed:

-  the comments about purpose built accommodation but remained unhappy this development was proposed in its present form in the middle of a residential area.

-  the comment about 1000 students at the school and their likely impact on the neighbourhood

-  the changes in the locality due to the new Cricket Pavilion and the subsequent increase in pedestrian and vehicle movements particularly on match days

(Councillor Taggart joined the meeting at this point)

The Chair noted the majority of Panel Members were not minded to approve the application and suggested the matter be deferred for one cycle to afford officers the opportunity to consider the points made by Members. The Panel were advised that very strong evidence would be required to overturn the decision of an Inspector and attendance by a Panel Member at any subsequent appeal would be essential

Members were not minded to accept the officers recommendation to approve the application and

RESOLVED – To defer the application for one cycle to allow time for officers to investigate the merits of the reasons to refuse the application discussed by Panel including:

• PPS3
• Change in demand for student housing
• Change in the locality including the impact of the new Cricket stand, its impact on highways and student usage
• Relevance of the Glassworks decision due to noise impact and proximity of this site to residential

(Councillor Taggart abstained from voting on this matter as he had not been present for consideration of the whole item of business)