Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Chief Planing Officer for an outline application including layout, scale and means of access for 53 dwellings and full application for conversion and extension of the main school building and stable block to form 36 dwellings.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline application for the laying out, scale and means of access for 46 dwellings and full application for conversion and extension of the former main school building and stable block to form 36 dwellings at the former Leeds Girls High School Site, Headingley Lane, Headingley, Leeds 6

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Members were reminded that a position statement was brought to Panel in June 2012 which brought Members up to date with the contents of the latest and current application. The position statement outlined a series of matters which officers considered needed to be resolved for the development to be acceptable.

Officers highlighted the following issues in relation to the application:

• The decision of the Planning Inspector at appeal on the previous application that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application on UDP Policy N6 (protection of playing pitches) or PPG17 (protection of open space on health grounds)
• That the tennis courts had never been available for public use but that the development would deliver an area of public open space and a pedestrian route through the site
• New development to include 5% affordable housing in accordance with the current interim policy
• Scheme does not adversely impact on Supertram land which may be required for NGT route
• Section 106 package to include contributions to: children’s play equipment, education, public transport infrastructure, travel plan measures and a bus stop contribution

Officers reported that the revisions to the layout and scheme had addressed the matters arising out of the June 2012 position statement and had built upon the progress made since the previously refused application. The proposal was considered overall at worst to have a neutral effect upon the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.

It was suggested that overall the proposal did comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, the proposed Section 106 package would meet a range of Council objectives and would comply with the CIL tests laid out. There were no other material considerations which outweighed this and therefore planning permission was recommended.

It was further reported that 16 letters of objection together with 4 letters making other representations had been received.

Councillor J Illingworth requested that a paper on health impacts be circulated at the meeting. Following consideration by the Panel it was resolved not to circulate the document but make it available to Members at the conclusion of the meeting.

Councillor J Illingworth addressed the meeting highlighting his concerns about the application which included:

·  Issues around Public Health in view of the loss of the existing tennis courts

·  Councillor Illingworth suggested that Public Health was now a material planning consideration following the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012

·  The application should be deferred to await information from the Director of Public Health

·  Members should not make a decision on this application, which may “hamstring” the Panel’s decision on a future related application

The applicant’s representative; Mr Natkus, addressed the meeting responding to the issues raised by Councillor Illingworth:

• On the issue of the loss of the tennis courts, Mr Natkus suggested that there was currently 20 public available tennis courts within a two mile radius of the application site.
• The tennis courts at the former Leeds Girls High School site had never been available for public use
• The Health and Social Care Act 2012 would not achieve Councillor Illingworth’s objectives
• By approving the application this would achieve improved recreation facilities for the people of Leeds

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

• The former tennis courts had never been open to the public
• Section 106 monies should be used to buy vacant HMOs in the locality and bring them back into use for families
• Affordable housing should be on site
• Significant more detail of the application had been received and previous concerns had been addressed
• There had been significant progress to produce an acceptable scheme within the Conservation Area

A discussion ensued on the merits of affordable housing both on and off site provision recognising that if the off site option was pursued an acceptable mechanism would need to be put in place which guaranteed delivery and ongoing affordability

It was proposed by Councillor Bentley that further investigations of off site affordable housing be explored

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the proposal made by Councillor Bentley to explore further the provision of off site affordable housing be pursued

(Councillors Coulson Wood and Leadley required it to be recorded that they voted against this decision)

(ii)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement within 3 months of the date of this Panel to cover: Affordable Housing (5% if built in accordance with timeframe of interim policy), On site greenspace, laying out and 10 year maintenance and off site contribution for equipped children’s play provision (£35,551.42), Education contribution (£238,191.00), Public Transport Infrastructure contribution (£62,163.00), Travel planning measures and monitoring fee (£39,894.25 for metrocards and £100 per dwelling for green travel measures) and a bus stop contribution (£6,000.00)