Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on this application which has been submitted following the submission of a Pre-Application submission in 2013 where advice was issued by officers as to the proposal then placed before them for comment. The application lies in the Buslingthorpe Conservation Area and forms part of a site identified for housing purposes on the emerging Site Allocations Plan.

(Report attached)

This application had been submitted following the submission of a pre-application submission in 2013 where advice was issued by officers as to the proposal then placed before them for comment. The application lies in the Buslingthorpe Conservation area and forms part of a site identified for housing purposes on the emerging Site Allocations Plan.

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day and photographs and plans were displayed at the meeting.

Members noted that a late letter of objection had been received. The Leeds Civic Trust and The Victorian Society had given comments as listed at points 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the submitted report.

Members were informed that a number of items would be retained as the site was of significant historical interest. The items to be retained included the brick chimney, high stone walls surrounding the site, the outbuildings and the cottage located at the western end of the site.

Members were informed of the following aspects of the development:

·  The site to be made up of mixed housing

·  Housing to be in 5 blocks

·  There would be a two vehicle egress and access to the site

·  Pedestrian access

·  Car parking located under the blocks of apartments

·  40% Green space provision which exceeds policy requirement.

·  All flats near the wall would be north facing but would retain light via holes ‘punched’ into the retained wall which would also allow future inhabitants to view the green space opposite

·  The flats were uniform in design with a mill style design encouraged

Members were informed of a couple of outstanding matters which included:

·  Highways issues – access via Scott Hall Road and adjoining site.

·  Car parking capacity and movement

·  Routes for  emergency services access

·  Still awaiting a report in relation to NPPF Standards

·  Assurance of management

Matt Seddon the agent spoke to the Panel informing them that this site was close to the city and was a brownfield site.

He said that the development would be of high quality low cost housing. The architects had tried to retain the history of the site within the plans.

The development would be a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom properties designed to reflect a traditional mill building.

In response to a Members query in respect of local amenities the Panel were informed that there were plans for a local shop close to the location and also looking at incorporating a gym in the scheme.

Members were unsure of the use of holes ‘punched’ into the wall and discussed this issue asking a number of questions relation to the wall being lowered or the block of flats being moved further away from the wall.

It was noted that the Panel welcomed the development of the site but had concerns with respect to traffic along Buslingthorpe Lane and the height of the wall to be retained.

It was also noted that the Panel would welcome more green space within the development and some local amenities.

RESOLVED – Members were asked to note the progress that had been made in the development of the submitted proposals from the initial submission and their views of the various issues raised in the body of this report, and were requested in order to inform Officers of the direction in which to take the application for final determination.

1.  Panel Members had no concerns regarding the principle of residential development of this site.

2.  Panel Members considered the provision solely of flatted / apartment type development to be appropriate.

3.  Panel Members were agreeable to the housing mix on offer.

4.  Panel Members considered that the scale of the development to be appropriate, including the degree of subservience of the southern blocks in relation to the northern blocks and the increase in height over and above the existing buildings on site. However, they had concerns in relation to the block near the wall and requested that this be addressed.

5.  Panel Members considered the design to be acceptable in itself of the various block apartments proposed taking into account the retention / inclusion of the cottage buildings at the western end of the site.

6.  Members reserved their consideration of the loss of buildings pending the receipt of further information.

7.  Panel Members agreed that the design of the proposed buildings in and of themselves would have a positive impact on the character of the conservation area noting that the scheme now incorporates a wider range of building scales reflecting the historic evolution of the development

8.  Members reserved their position in respect of parking provision pending the receipt of further information, and the spaces need to be usable.

9.  Members considered that the distance between the proposed blocks to be adequate to overcome possible concerns relating to privacy and overbearing impact on future occupiers of the scheme and their use of the incidental open spaces provided.

10. Members agreed that the scheme represents suitable on site greenspace provision notwithstanding the requirements of Policy G4 of the Core Strategy in this instance

11.Members agreed that the terraced form of space between the blocks including that area of land to the south of the site provides sufficient types of Green Space provision for future occupiers of the proposed development.

12.Members agreed that for a non-city type scheme that the level of daylight and sunlight penetration is considered acceptable and offers adequate amenity for future occupiers of the development. Members requested a caveat be put in place for distance between properties and the retained wall

13.Members agreed that these contributions should be pursued by officers in the determination of the application and the drafting of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

14.Are there any further points that Members wish to raise at this time? Members requested that clarification should be sought who had responsibility for maintaining greenspace and access.