Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development and retail store.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an outline application for residential development and a retail store at Victoria Road, Headingley.

Site photographs and plans were displayed at the meeting.  Members were reminded of the previous decision to defer this application to allow further consultation with Sport England and Public Health England.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The outline application was for residential development and a retail store on the playing fields site of the Leeds Girls High school.

·  Photographs displayed trees that were subject to protection orders.

·  Existing access into the site fell within the Headingley Conservation Area.

·  The most contentious issue was the proposed development of protected playing pitches.  A previous inquiry had felt that this would not be contrary to policy.

·  With regards to the fact that a higher than average of the local population suffered from health issues, it was felt that there was no significance as facilities had not always been available for public use and other facilities were available.  The proposals would also include open space that would be available for public use.  The proposals also committed to the provision of play/sports equipment.

·  The proposed retail unit fell outside the nearby designated centre and complied with current UDP policies and the emerging Core Strategy.

·  The proposals would generate a requirement for affordable housing.

·  Section 106 package – including affordable housing, commitment to open space and maintenance, metro card contribution, improvements to local sports and leisure facilities and local employment opportunities.

·  Members were shown illustrations of an indicative layout demonstrating the massing and scale of the proposals.  It was felt that the scheme had progressed in a satisfactory manner and was in keeping with the character of the conservation area.

·  The proposals would provide much needed family housing in the area and would bring a brownfield site back into beneficial use.

·  The Panel was informed of further representations that had been received from a Ward Councillor and local MP.

A local Ward councillor addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  The following issues were raised:

·  Development of the site would destroy a much needed sports and leisure facility.

·  The bulk of the site was playing fields and unsuitable for development.

·  There were already too many convenience stores in the area.

·  It was 8 miles to the nearest similar facilities and there were no local pool facilities.

·  Potential use of the site as a community asset – further to a Panel Members question, it was reported that preliminary discussions had been held with Leeds City Council and Lees Metropolitan University.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Panel.  The following issues were raised:

·  The proposals fell within current policy arrangements.

·  The site only ever had limited public access and all extensive users had relocated.  Unlawful use of the site had also been limited.

·  Refusing permission would not give access to the site.

·  There was a housing need in the area and this would see the use of a brownfield site.

In response to Members’ comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Provision of children’s play facilities – this would not necessarily be on the site but elsewhere in the Ward subject to consultation with Ward Members.

·  Transfer of the land to be used as a community asset.

·  Weighting placed on public health issues – it was felt the proposals did not support the health and wellbeing of the local community.

·  There was a lack of open public spaces in Headingley.

RESOLVED – That the recommendation to approve be refused and officers be asked to return to a subsequent meeting with reasons for refusal based on the following:

·  Noncompliance of application with Policy N6 of RDUDP

·  Noncompliance of application with paragraphs 69 to 74 of the NPPF in particular Paragraph 73

·  Contrary to Health and Social Care Act

·  Noncompliance with the aims and objective of the Core Strategy in that it relates to promoting Health Issues.

Councillor Nash left the meeting for the duration of the discussion on this item due to her earlier declaration of a disclosable pecuniary interest.