Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for part three, part four storey block of 41 studio flats with ancillary office space, landscaping and car parking.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application for a part three, part four storey block of 41 studio flats with ancillary office space, landscaping and car parking at land adjacent to 47 St Michael’s Lane, Headingley.

Members were shown photographs and site plans.

Further information highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The proposed scheme had been amended from an initial proposal for 45 studio flats down to 41.  Part of the Section 106 agreement had been amended to reflect this.
• Additional representation received from local objectors.
• The proposals fell outside the Headingley Conservation Area.
• The site was previously used for industrial purposes.
• Members were informed of previous planning refusals at the site and existing permission that had been granted on appeal for another scheme on the site.
• Car parking provision met UDP guidelines and there would be no permits for residents.
• The footprint of the proposed development was similar to that of the proposals that had extant permission.

A local resident addressed the meeting with concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

• Concern that the development was too large for a narrow site.
• Concern regarding the potential for increased noise and disturbance, particularly with the roof terrace.
• Problems regarding litter and rubbish in the area which would be increased should this scheme be approved.
• There was already a significant amount of student accommodation in the area and there had been a decline in the number of students coming to the city.
• Strong objections had been received from 19 residents.
• The proposals would not provide high quality homes.
• In response to Members questions, it was accepted that the site needed filling but it was felt the proposals were too much for the space involved.  Further concern was expressed over car parking provision.

The applicant’s representative addressed the meeting regarding the application.  The following issues were highlighted:

• The applicant had undertaken extensive consultation with local residents and Council officers.
• The Council’s Design and Review Panel felt that it was a better design than the proposal that had extant permission.
• The scheme would direct students away from traditional student housing and release those properties back on to the open market.
• The objections only represented a small fraction of the local population and only 2 had been received from residents within 150 metres of the site.

In response to Members comments and questions, the applicant’s representative reported that the number of proposed flats had been reduced due to a change from cluster flats to studio flats.  He also informed the Panel that the consultation had included writing out to 36 local residents, local interest groups and Ward Councillors.  It was further reported that the proposed roof terrace had been assessed by noise consultants and had felt to be acceptable.

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

• A noise assessment of the proposed roof terrace had been carried out by Environmental Health officers.
• Policy on shared surfaces – this would not apply to the proposals as they would be private land.
• The number of allocated parking spaces came within guidelines.
• There would be no through access of the site.
• Suggestions that conditions should be attached to the use of the roof terrace, it was reported that there would be difficulty enforcing any conditions but noise levels could be monitored.
• The size of the proposed flats fell within housing standards.
• Concern regarding the lack of greenspace.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions outlined in the report and an additional condition regarding acceptable noise levels to the boundary to ensure that the use of the roof terrace can be controlled to minimise noise disturbance to residents in the surrounding neighbourhood.  Officers to consult Environmental Health to determine a suitable dba rating at the boundary.