Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer and receive a pre-application presentation on the proposals for a residential development at the site of the Leeds Girls High School, 31 Headingley Lane, Headingley, Leeds.

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.  There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation.

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a pre-application presentation by the Morley House Trust for residential development, conservation area consent for demolition, change of use of Rose Court to flats and listed building application for alterations to Rose Court at Leeds Girls High School.

The Panel was asked to note the report and comments were invited on the following issues:

·  Highways proposals

·  Masterplan layout and effects on listed building and conservation area

·  Impact on trees

·  Residential amenity, in particular garden sizes

·  Level of detail required when planning applications are submitted

It was reported that the pre-application presentation would give the developer an opportunity to show the position since the previous application had been to appeal.  The appeal had resulted in approval for the conversion of Rose Court but had refused new building and conversion and extension of the main school building.  The Inspector had also expressed concern regarding the loss of trees.

Members were shown site plans and photographs of the site and had made a site visit prior to the meeting. 

The following issues were highlighted:

• Concern regarding access to the north west of the site to Headingley Lane.
• Proposals to move blocks 17, 18 and 19 so that Rose Court was not obscured.
• Concern regarding the narrow private drive to the west of the site and its unsuitability for service vehicles.  Upgrading of this would have a detrimental impact on trees.
• Proposed car parking provision for the site had been accepted by Highways and the Inspector.
• The Inspector had not raised objections to the close proximity of blocks 14 and 11 or to the removal of trees in the north east cornet to re-position block 19.
• There had not been objection to the small gardens proposed due to the amount of public open space on the site.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• The developer was happy to close the access to Headingley Road and use the private road for all 11 properties on the west side of the site.
• Issues surrounding refuse collection.
• The north west access point could still be used by emergency service vehicles.
• Issues relating to the proposal to move block 19 and the proximity to the sunken garden.  It was reported that there would have to be further discussions with conservation and tree officers regarding this.
• Blocks 11 and 12 could be moved slightly south to prevent a detrimental impact on trees.
• Concern regarding sight lines on blocks 10 and 15 – block 15 could be re-sized or rotated, block 10 would be difficult to move and had not received and objection from the inspector.

Members were asked to comment on the following issues:

• The principle of retaining an access for vehicles from Headingley Lane – Members considered safety issues for keeping the access to Headingley Lane open to access 5 properties.  Members voted in favour of allowing these 5 properties to retain vehicular access to Headingley Lane.
• The proposal to serve 7 dwellings off a private drive off Victoria Road - Members considered various consequences including the lack of a turning head for refuse vehicle, surfacing, impact on trees, safety and practicality of vehicles having to reverse down the drive, safety for pedestrians and the relationship between some of the residential blocks and the drive.  Members voted in favour of allowing 7 dwellings to be served off a private drive subject to details of road construction for drainage, lighting, turning circle being acceptable in relation to the trees.
• Parking provision across the site – Members accepted that the level of car parking was acceptable.
• Whether the development is appropriate in siting of block 18 relative to the setting of the listed Rose Court building – The building was considered to be an improvement from the previous scheme but there were concerns about the size and also the size of block 17 across the access road.  Members supported the idea of creating a gate house feature with the two blocks but felt they needed to be reduced in scale because of the impacts on views to Rose Court and Block 17’s proximity to the access and a tree to its rear.
• Whether block 14 had an acceptable relationship with the adjoining dwelling in block 11 in terms of achieving satisfactory residential amenity – it was considered that block 14 was likely to harm the living conditions of neighbours and should be removed.
• The principle of the siting of block 17 and its relationship to the access road – It was felt that the distance between block 17 and 18 was too short for amenity considerations.  In principle the siting of blocks 17 and 18 was accepted but there was concern with scale and massing.  Concerns were also raised regarding the gardens of block 17 that would be overshadowed by a retained tree.
• The siting of Block 19 in relation to Rose Court – The principle of this block was broadly accepted subject to scale, massing and high quality design been demonstrated through the application.  Additional replacement tree planting elsewhere on the sit would be needed to compensate for the loss of trees.
• The impact of the proposed blocks 9, 10 and 14 upon the existing trees -  Block 9: Members noted the importance of retaining the mature Lime Tree (T12) but thought that subject to ensuring this tree was unharmed by the size, siting and construction of block 9 that this block was acceptable.  Block 10: Members were concerned that this block would likely put pressure on the existing trees that were in close proximity and may result in pressure by the future occupiers for the trees to be felled. The developer was keen to say the inspector did not refuse the appeal on this issue but acknowledged the Inspector had serious concerns about this relationship.  Block 14: Members thought this block would also likely impact on the trees and given other amenity concerns should  be removed from the scheme.
• Members views were sought on the small gardens proposed - Members were broadly accepting of the small garden sizes of the townhouses given the availability of open space within the site. They did however say that small gardens largely or wholly covered by retained trees were not acceptable and these units would need to be removed. As such blocks 10 and 14 should be removed completely and individual units within blocks17, 18, 2 and 3 will need to be omitted.
• Views on the public open space provision – The amount of open space was considered to be acceptable.
• Views on the the housing mix as proposed – Members considered this to be acceptable.
• Members views on the level of detail they would wish to see as part of the revised application - Members accepted that an outline application with a good level of detail would be acceptable. They wanted to see good scale and massing plans to ensure they could assess the heights of buildings. The developer offered to provide these along with a detailed design code and indicative elevations.

(Councillor Coulson requested that it be recorded that he did not take part in any of the votes taken on this item).