Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on applications for the residential redevelopment proposals comprising flats and terraced houses at the former Leeds Girl High School, Headingley Lane, Headingley

 

(Report attached)

 

  Councillor Janet Harper in the Chair

 

  Further to minute 37 of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 1^st October 2009 when Panel considered a position statement on proposals for the redevelopment of the former Leeds Girls High School site, Headingley Lane LS6, Members considered the formal applications.  Appended to the report was a copy of the report considered by Panel at the meeting in October 2009

The Chair stated that due to the level of interest in the application and the number of representations which had been received on the proposals, it had been decided on this occasion to vary the speaking protocol to allow three objectors to address the Panel, with the applicant’s agents having the equivalent amount of time to put forward their case to Members

 

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

Officers presented the report which related to 5 applications, these being:

·  an outline application for residential development of 51 houses and 15 flats

·  a full planning application for change of use and extension of the main school building and stable block to form 32 flats and 4 terrace houses

·  change of use application for the listed Rose Court building to form 12 flats

·  listed building application for Rose Court

·  Conservation Area application for demolition works

 

Minor revisions to the scheme had been undertaken which resulted in 4

fewer dwellings being proposed and an increase in the number of car parking spaces; these being 2 spaces per family dwelling and 1 space per flat.  Disabled parking provision would also be included.  With the 1 dwelling in Rose Court Lodge and 2 dwellings within the existing North West Lodge, a total of 117 dwellings were now proposed on the site

Members were informed that the main planning issues related to the

principle of housing development/ loss of protected playing pitches; design issues and impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Headingley Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building; highways issues; residential amenity issues and developer contributions

  In terms of the principle of housing development, planning guidance required LPAs to encourage residential development in sustainable locations, with Officers stating that the site was in a highly sustainable location with good public transport links.  The vacant buildings required a new use and given the location of the site and nature of the area in which it was sited, residential use which would deliver family housing in the Area of Housing Mix was considered to be appropriate

  The scheme would bring back into use the listed Rose Court, would preserve the most attractive elements of the 1905 main school building and provide public open space to land which had not previously been publicly accessible

  Relating to the loss of protected playing pitches, Officers stated that the facilities which would be lost were two sets of tennis courts, one set which had been in regular use by the school; the other set having more recently – up to the closure of the school in 2008 -  been used by the school for overflow car parking.  There was also a open grassland area which had been used as informal recreational space by pupils during breaks and lunchtimes

  Once the closure of the school had been announced in 2006, the Panel was informed that Officers had discussed the possible use of the playing pitches with a range of organisations including the Council’s Parks Department; colleges and both universities to establish whether there was interest in using these facilities, but this had not been forthcoming.  Whilst interest had been expressed by a group of local primary school headteachers and governors seeking to address the lack of outdoor play areas for local school children, Education Leeds, although sympathetic, had raised management and safety concerns at the proposals and in view of this, the interest had not been pursued further

  In terms of the greenfield element of the site, Policy N6 was relevant and having considered this, Officers were of the view that criteria i) of this policy applied which related to the provision of suitable replacement pitches; these pitches being located at Manor House Lane, LS17 adjacent to the Grammar School at Leeds site

  On the issue of locality, Officers accepted that the former school site and its new location were 4 miles apart but were in the north/north-east part of the city.  Also, as the school was a private school it was felt that its catchment area could be considered to be much wider than a community school

  Sport England considered the proposals to be acceptable in line with their policy E4 and PPG17 which required replacement pitches to be of an equivalent or better quality.  As the main playing pitch on the former school site comprised two tennis courts and the facilities at Manor House Lane were over 6 hectares in area and provided for a wide range of sports with community access, it was felt this was adequate compensation for the loss of the courts.  In addition, arrangements were in place for public access to those facilities whereas there was no public access to the courts at Leeds Girls High School

  Concerning Ford House Gardens, Members were informed that the landowner had agreed to lease this 0.5 hectare area of land for the use and benefit of the Headingley community.  As the landowner was a charitable organisation it was not possible to gift the land to the Council.  Instead, a ten year licence was proposed which would enable the enjoyment of this previously inaccessible area of land for at least 10 years, with the possibility of the land being offered to the Council in perpetuity, if an acceptable scheme came forward on the Victoria Road site and was granted planning permission

  In relation to design issues, the Panel was informed that a high quality scheme was required for the site.  In terms of the outline application, an image showing the scale and massing of the scheme was displayed and reference was made to the proposals on the south west corner of the site, particularly the 4 storey block which would comprise flats

Revisions to the previous proposals had been made which resulted in the proposed unsympathetic flat roof extension on the listed Rose Court no longer being retained.  Elements of the impressive 1905 main school building would be picked up in the architecture of the proposed flats and a landscaped public open space which would create a Georgian square would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

  Regarding highways matters, Officers stated the proposals would close the current poor vehicular access on Headingley Lane and provide safer access points. There would be two principal means of access; these being the existing access on Victoria Road which would be improved and the creation of a new access also from Victoria Road.  The existing access which served the lodge building would be retained.  Improved pedestrian and cycle access through a link from Victoria Road to Headingley Lane would be provided, which would also be vehicle free

  The applicant would be expected to enter into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to provide a range of developer contributions, including £81,571 toward public transport improvements.  On affordable housing, an innovative approach was being proposed whereby the usual 15% of affordable housing would be provided by way of a commuted sum which would be used to buy back some of the HMO properties in Headingley in order to return them to family housing and help address the issue of housing mix.  In the event this was not feasible then the affordable housing would be provided on-site, in the form of a pro-rata mix of dwelling types to achieve the 15% normally required

 

  A high level of representations on the proposals had been received - 1335 letters including representations from a range of organisations; Elected Members and Greg Mulholland MP.  The comments of local Ward Members, Councillors Martin Hamilton and James Monaghan were read out and reference was also made to objections received from Councillors Atha and Illingworth.  Officers reported the receipt of objections from the North West Inner Area Committee planning sub group, particularly at the short notice of the advertisement of the applications and the Panel meeting being held in August at the start of Ramadan

 

  Officers summarised the main points of the applications and recommended them to Panel, however as Sport England had not formally withdrawn their statutory objection, Officers requested the applications be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and additional conditions relating to provision of highway works and footpaths to be to adoptable standards; the number of units not to exceed those shown on the individual plans; time limit of 3 years for submission of Reserved Matters, 5 years for implementation; provision of disabled access details and for a survey of gates, piers, steps and railings to be carried out and a scheme for their retention and restoration to be approved and implemented

  The Panel heard representations from three objectors and the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting and noted the comments made which included:

- a failure of the proposals to meet the requirements of the Community Planning Brief produced by objectors

- the loss of playing fields despite the offer by local schools to utilise these for the benefit of their pupils

- the demolition of a considerable proportion of the main school building

- the lack of garden space in the area and the need for public recreation areas which would benefit the local community

 

and from the applicant’s agent

- that the applicants had addressed all of the issues in the Community Planning Brief apart from the playing fields aspect and if approved, the development would enable people to see these buildings where this had previously not been possible and to enjoy the area of public open space

 

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the lack of detail in the outline application to enable a considered decision to be given to the proposals

·  the intention to include flats on the site as opposed to large scale family housing which was needed and concerns that more flats would further increase the transient community in the area

·  concerns at the height of the 4 storey element and the possibility of overdominance, particularly to the openness of the landscaped area in the scheme

·  that the balustrades at the front of Rose Court should be retained and reinstated to their original form

·  concerns at the loss of trees on the site

·  concerns at the extent of the demolition of the main school building

·  concerns that a period of 10 years for the guaranteed use of Ford House Gardens was not long enough

·  That Members were very dissatisfied with the loss of the playing pitches in this area of Headingley and the proposals for their replacement with pitches outside of the immediate locality which would not be easily accessible to the Headingley community

·  the lack of play area facilities for local schools; that the application afforded the opportunity to remedy this and that the expression of interest in taking over the playing pitches by a group of local schools should not be dismissed due to the concerns raised by Education Leeds

·  that the previous report had indicated that Highways Officers could not support the proposals

·  the impact of the proposals on both Victoria Road and the junction with Headingley Lane which was a cause for concern due to the high volume of traffic the area experienced

·  whether the highway proposals would provide sufficient turning space for emergency and refuse vehicles

·  affordable housing, with mixed views on the proposed method of dealing with this

·  that the timing of the application being brought to Panel seemed rushed in view of some matters which appeared not have been satisfactorily resolved

 

(Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest as a Governor at Springbank Primary School )

 

The Panel considered how to proceed

 

The Head of Highways Development Services referred to the plan

which had been tabled at the meeting and made the following comments:

·  that the report considered by Panel in October 2009 had referred to a wider development but due to the withdrawal of the former Sports Hall from the scheme, no additional highways measures were required

·  that there had been concerns about the access road but that the submission of the revised plan showed an increased road width which Officers were satisfied with.  Similarly, revised drawings had been submitted to demonstrate the turning head for refuse and emergency vehicles but it was accepted that it was not possible for 2 vehicles to pass at this point

·  in terms of the highway issues at Victoria Road, that during the lifetime of the application, Highways Officers had amended and implemented a new scheme on Victoria Road and that the ‘Keep Clear’ road markings associated with the school would be removed

·  that the NGT proposals would address the Victoria Road/Headingley Lane junction and that Officers could only address the highways issues raised by the applications before Panel.  Officers were satisfied that no additional traffic would be on the highway network as a result of these proposals

The Chief Planning Officer, who was in attendance, provided the

following comments

·  that it would be possible to defer the outline application if Members required more detail on the 4 storey block

·  that 15% affordable housing was being offered but that due to the level of HMO properties in the area, many of which were vacant, there was an opportunity to purchase a number of these to return them to family housing, with a fall-back position, in the event this could not be achieved, of securing 15% on-site affordable housing

·  regarding the timing of the application being brought to Panel, this was in response to a request from the applicant seeking for the applications to be determined.  Members were also informed that there was pressure from the applicants to lodge an appeal against non-determination.  On this matter, the Chief Planning Officer stated that if the applications were determined by an Inspector, the outcome might be less favourable in terms of what Officers had been able to secure.  He also advised that the financial pressures faced by the school were not a reason for determining the applications.  These should be determined on planning grounds alone

·  that a written response would be provided to Councillor Illingworth to the points he had recently raised on the application, but that the Chief Planning Officer was not of the view that there was a direct relationship between the health of existing residents and the planning applications before Members and that in terms of equality issues, conditions requiring provision of disabled access were included as was the requirement for affordable housing.  Other aspects of disabled access would be addressed by Part M of the Building Regulations

As a way forward in view of the comments which had been made, it was suggested that Panel indicate the areas it would like Officers to pursue with the applicant

  RESOLVED -  That determination of the applications be deferred and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting to include additional information relating to:

-  the 4 storey block; its height and relationship to the surrounding area

-  the density of the site

-  the extent of the demolition of the main school building

-  the length of time for the lease of Ford House Gardens

-  the loss of open space/playing pitches

-  highways matters

 

(Following consideration of this matter Councillor Taggart returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair)