Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals for a residential development on the site of the former Leeds Girls High School, Headingley.

Panel previously deferred determination of this matter from the meeting held 7^th October 2010

(Report attached)

Further to minute 51 of the meeting held 7^th October 2010 when the applications were withdrawn from the agenda due to new issues being raised in applications made by a member of the public to the High Court which sought to prevent a decision being taken, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the planning applications and responding to the matters sought to be raised before the High Court. Subsequently the Court had received notice that the injunction and judicial review had been summarily dismissed

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Officers reported receipt of letters of representation from:

-  Mr G Mulholland MP and Mr H Benn MP

-  Individual letters of objection from Councillors Monaghan; Hamilton; Atha and Illingworth. Officers provided a précis of their contents

-  LCC Health Scrutiny Board

-  A further joint letter of representation from local ward Councillors M Hamilton and Monaghan

-  Further letters from local amenity groups and individuals

Officers highlighted the key issues relating to the scheme to consider as:

Playing Pitches

• Referred to relevant planning policy N6
• Noted the new pitch provision located at The Grammar School At Leeds (GSAL) was open to public use and of superior quality to that at the former Leeds Girls High School (LGHS) site. The LGHS pitches had never been available for public use
• The LGHS pitches had been assessed by LCC Parks & Countryside as unsuitable for various activities. Furthermore LCC did not have resources available for their upkeep
• The Lawn Tennis Association had not responded to a request to comment on residents’ claims that provision  of tennis courts in the locality did not meet LTA recommended standards
• Members should note the proximity and availability of pitches at Woodhouse Moor for community use
• Sport England had withdrawn their objection to the application
• Reported the opinion of Leading Counsel that Policy N6 could not form the basis of a refusal as the two criteria within Policy N6 had clearly been met
• Referred to relevant policy PPG17
• Noted the comment by objectors regarding consultation and responded that paragraph 10 of PPG17 did not give local communities power to veto a development.
• Leading Counsel advised that although that part of PPG17 carried weight, it was not a defensible basis for refusing planning permission

Ford House Gardens

• Reported the circumstances of the withdrawal of the offer of use of Ford House Gardens (FHG) for the community
• At the time FHG was offered as part of the section 106 package, the Panel could lawfully consider that offer as forming part of the application; however the rules governing how legal agreements were taken into consideration in planning applications changed in April 2010; the offer had also formed part of the claim in the High Court challenge referred to above.
• The land needed to satisfy tests of necessity to make the development acceptable in planning terms; to be directly related to the development and fairly; and to be reasonably related in scale and kind. LCC could not state those tests were met as the relationship between FHG and the development was not suitably robust.
• Leading Counsel’s advice sought by both LCC and the applicant concluded that the offer of FHG should be withdrawn from the scheme and the withdrawal was not in itself a reason to refuse the scheme

Main School Building

• A slide showing the scale of proposed demolition was displayed
• The façade would be retained and there had been discussions over retaining the link and Library extension as well. These could provide 3 townhouses and 6 apartments however 2 houses to the rear of the development would need to be deleted in order to facilitate the rear access road,
• Officers were mindful of community concerns over the introduction of flats into the area in general and had concluded that the objective of promoting sustainable communities was better served by the application as proposed

4 Storey Block

• New drawings had been submitted and were displayed to show the basement car parking arrangement
• Officers commented on the quality of the architects drawings but felt any outstanding issues could be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage

Affordable Housing

• The contribution would be used to purchase Houses in Multiple Occupation in the area in order to return these to family residences. The fallback position would be to provide affordable housing on site.

The Panel heard representation from Mr P Baker, Mr B McKinnon and Mrs S Buckle in objection to the development proposals. Their representations included the following issues:

-  Concern over the demolition proposals for the Main School Building

-  The view that the library could accommodate town houses, not flats

-  The new drawings showed the true heights of the flat block proposals. Such a tall building should not be erected so close to trees which provided character to the area

-  The proposals were contrary of Policy N6 as the pitch provision was not within LS6 area 

-  The proposals were not widely supported locally contrary to part 10 of PPG17

-  Concern that comments from the LCC Conservation and Design Officers regarding heights; design; retention of the school building and overdevelopment had not been highlighted

-  Highlighted the fact that the University had been required to provide replacement pitches within the same locality as part of their applications to redevelop existing pitches for student housing

The Panel then heard from Mr P Torrible on behalf of the applicant who addressed the withdrawal of FHG and the issues raised at previous Panel meetings including the GSAL playing fields being open for use by the public and primary schools; trees and the design and massing of the flat block being consistent with the 4 storey buildings across the road. He also commented of the proposals for the Main School Building, highways matters and concluded by stating that the applicant, as a charity, was not in a position to “gift” the use of FHG to the community, nor was it able to provide FHG as a benefit in conjunction with these applications

Members noted the applicants’ interpretation of Policy N6 (i) in terms of reprovision of function. Mr Torrible stated N6 (i) had been met as the LGHS pitches which had been exclusively used by the LGHS pupils, had been reprovided for at GSAL and to a better quality with public access. The Panel further discussed:

Highways - the high volume of traffic already on the local highway network. Members recalled LGHS traffic had caused problems for residents, especially at the school peak times which they compared to peak times for the proposed residential development. The Highways Officer provided a response based on the detailed Traffic Assessment which compared peak traffic flows and concluded the peak flows would be lower than national guidelines suggested amounted to a negative impact. Overall the proposal would not negatively impact on the existing highways network

Ford House Gardens – Discussed the change in the law in April 2010 which prescribed what could and could not be offered in association with a development through a 106 Agreement.

Interpretation of the relevant policies - The Area Planning Manager explained the FHG offer was still being considered in August 2010 in the light of the changes to the law, but advice from Counsel had been received since then.

Members considered whether advice from another Counsel would give a different interpretation of the same policies. In response, the Chief Planning Officer read out the advice which stated the application of Policy N6 on this site had been overtaken by events. The Area Planning Manager reiterated that N6 required only one of the 2 tests to be met. Members did acknowledge that N6(i) had been met. The Area Planning Manager confirmed that N6 (ii) had also been carefully considered and in his view had been satisfied.

(Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest at this point as a Governor of Springbank Primary School which lay within the Headingley area and could be regarded as one of the Primary Schools which could make use of the LGHS playing pitches)

The Panel expressed regret over the withdrawal of FHG and further discussed:

• The loss of open space in what they regarded as a congested area
• The slide showing the new build adjacent to the existing tall trees. They felt the slide now showed the true heights of the development and the likely impact on the trees and the character of the street scene.
• Whether the Main School building could be retained and satisfactorily re-modelled
• Perceived over-intensity of the scheme
• The appearance of the Victoria Road frontage
• The interpretation of the policies
• The interpretation of the meaning of locality
• The role of the local authority in being responsible for the future health of the local community through provision of usable and local open space to promote activity
• The weight of local opposition to the development
• The terms of the S106 agreement and the triggers at which point commuted sums would be paid

The Chief Planning Officer in summing up reminded the Panel that no evidence that the loss of the LGHS pitches was linked to the health of any given community group had been presented. Noting that Members were not supportive of the development in its current form he reminded Members of the post benefits provided through the proposed development and requested Members consider those elements of the scheme they could support.

The Panel however commented that although the highways and policy issues had been comprehensively addressed in the report and presentations they still remained concerned over the extent and intensity, design and heights of the development and the elements of demolition.

Members noted the officer recommendation to defer and delegate approval of the applications to the Chief Planning Officer but were not minded to do so and

RESOLVED – That determination of the applications be deferred and officers be requested to present a further report to the next meeting setting out proposed reasons to refuse the applications based on the Panels concerns outlined above.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillors Fox and Leadley required it to be recorded that they abstained from voting on this matter