Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer for part demolition and conversion of Spenfield to create six apartments and studio flat, construction of seven terraced dwellings on the car park to the rear with associated boundary treatments, landscaping and car parking.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the part demolition and conversion of Spenfield to create six apartments and studio flat, construction of seven terraced dwellings on the car park to the rear with associated boundary treatments, landscaping and car parking at Spenfield, 182 Otley Road, Headingley, Leeds LS16 5AD.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the application.  A display model of the proposed development was also presented along with samples of materials to be used.

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

·  Reference was made to a previous application that had been refused following an appeal.

·  The Panel was shown which parts of the Spenfield would be retained.  It was reported that there was little of historic interest on the first floor of the property.

·  The new building would be situated further away from Spenfield than the previously rejected application.

·  The row of terraced dwellings would be stepped across rising from 2 storeys to 3 storeys.  A comparison was shown against that of the refused application.

·  Due to the extent of deterioration of the Spenfield building, a new beneficial use was required to bring the maintenance up to date.

·  The site was in the Weetwood Conservation Area and it was felt that the proposals were more suitable to this than the previous scheme.

·  There had not been any objections from Heritage England, Environmental Health or Highways.  It was recommended to approve the application.

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  There was disappointment at the recommendation to approve the application.  The scheme was only been minimally different in mass, floor size and appearance from the one refused at appeal.

·  The reported reduction in the height from the previous scheme was inaccurate.

·  The scheme was obtrusive and not in keeping with the area.

·  The report refers to similarities to the terraced block in the new scheme and should therefore be rejected.

·  The developer claimed the new building was required to support the renovation of Spenfield but would be making £2million profit.

The applicant’s agent and architect addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

·  Key points of the inspector’s reason for refusal of the previous scheme had been addressed including an increased distance between the terraced dwellings and the host building.

·  The stepped roofline of the terrace reduced visual impact and there would be 25% less silhouetting as the previous scheme.

·  If the scheme was approved, development would begin as soon as possible.

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

·  Detailed costs in relation to profit margins could not be given but the materials used for the quality of the development would not be inexpensive.

·  Following the appeal decision it had been concluded that there was still scope for development.  The new proposals were further away from the listed building and were smaller in scale and mass.

·  The siting of a modern designed building in relation to the listed building.

·  It was suggested that the condition for commencement be changed to 2 years.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That Application 16/04153/FU be deferred and delegated for officer approval as per the officer recommendation but subject to a variation in the standard time limit for the commencement condition to 2 years.

(2)  That application 16/04154/LI be granted listed building consent subject to a variation in the standard time limit for the commencement condition to 2 years.