Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the erection of nine dwellings, landscaping and infrastructure at land off Belle Vue Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15.

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of the erection of 9 dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure at land off Belle Vue Avenue, Scholes, LS15 4AA.

 

The application proposed a residential development of 9 detached four bedroom two storey dwellings on a greenfield site.

 

The greenfield site is located on the eastern edge of the village of Scholes, the village has a mix of houses and bungalows. The site is located close to the Manor House Community Centre which is used regularly by the community of Scholes. It was noted that an area used for parking would be lost due to the development. However, it was proposed that 6 visitors’ car parking spaces would be provided to compensate for the loss of parking.

 

Members were informed that the site comprises of a number of mature trees along the eastern edge of the site as well as a large oak tree towards the centre of the site and also a large oak tree adjacent to the vehicular access point on Belle Vue Road. These trees had been the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). It was noted that trees are to be planted to the boundary.

 

Members heard that one tree on the site is due to be removed as it was suffering from decay.

 

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day and were shown photographs and plans at the meeting.

 

Members were informed that the site is relatively flat and surrounded by residential properties on three sides. The properties are a mix of bungalows (sheltered housing) and two storey houses, with small groups of semi-detached properties and terraces with some detached properties on Belle Vue Avenue.

 

Members noted that a strip of land to the east was unallocated in the UDP and that beyond this was an area of land which is Safeguarded Land.

 

Members were advised that a number of objections had been raised from residents, the Barwick & Scholes Parish Council and ward member Cllr. Stephenson. The concerns raised were listed at 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the submitted report.

 

Ms Hassell, Chair of Barwick and Scholes Parish Council was at the meeting and informed the Panel that the Parish Council opposed the development as they did not feel that the type of houses proposed were right for the area. She said that they needed smaller houses so that residents could downsize and stay in the area. Ms Hassell said that the houses were out of character for the area and would dominate the existing properties nearby.

 

Ms Hassell informed the Panel that the residents or the parish council had not been consulted about the development. She also informed the Panel that the Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted for inspection and therefore carries weight. The Neighbourhood Plan sets out the need for smaller properties.

 

Ms Hassell advised the Panel that it was Belle Vue Road that was the access point to the development not Belle Vue Avenue as stated by the Planning Officer. She said that parking permits were in use at designated areas near the Manor House, she went on to say that 75% of residents on Belle Vue Road and Belle Vue Avenue were not able to park off road.  She said that parking for the events held at the Manor House was usually on the roadside and on the turning area on Belle Vue Road. She went on to say that the loss of parking threatened the sustainability of Scholes community care facilities.

 

Ms Hassell said that the developers would find it difficult to access the site due to the number of parked cars.

 

Cllr. Procter informed Members why he was late entering the meeting. He explained that there had been a conflict of advice given to objectors and that someone else had also come to the meeting expecting to speak but had been unaware of the time restrictions in place.

 

The Chair invited Dr Walsh to address the Panel and answer questions on this application.

 

In relation to a question about parking Dr Walsh informed the Panel that the Manor House was used by Scholes Community Care a self-funded organisation established in 1972. This organisation caters for the elders in the village. The organisation runs coffee mornings, day trips and other events. This facility is also caters for Osmond House which supports the brain damage trust these people have to be brought in vehicles.

 

Dr Walsh informed the Panel that parking was fundamental to the sustainability of this group which had been going for 45 years. She said that the Council needed to consider the wider social and health obligations rather than the recommendation of nine inappropriate houses.

 

Members were informed of the following;

·  That visitors to the Manor House are usually dropped off

·  Where visitors drive to the event parking can be for up to 2 hours

·  Residents parking scheme in use at properties across the road from the Manor House

·  Cars are sometimes double parked

·  The development site is located only a short walk from the local school

·  The school is current at capacity

·  There are no play facilities nearby

·  The scout group is full

 

Stuart Natkus spoke to the Panel on behalf of the applicant.

 

He informed the Members of the following:

·  That if there were more properties it would mean more cars.

·  The developers had designed the site on the basis of what is there already

·  Explained why the developers had decided to build 9 dwellings due to the size of the site and the necessary infrastructure.

·  That schools in the area had been looked at as part of the allocation process

·  The developers wanted to see a mixed balanced communities

·  Construction traffic would be compounded within the site and that plans had been drawn up to address movement of construction traffic

·  Consultation had been addressed with officers as the development was under 10 units and therefore not deemed necessary

 

 

In relation to questions about the red line boundary and ownership of the land Members’ attention was drawn to page 38 of the Panel papers which said that Certificate B had been signed and that notice had been served on Leeds City Council and Mr A C Gilpin.

 

Cllr. Nash referred to the list of non-material matters and material matters issued to Members of Plans Panels and the fact that Members need to consider the application as put forward in the report.

 

Members proposed a TRO to address the parking issues. However, Members were agreeable to the Highways Officer proposal that the TRO be deferred to allow Highways Officers’ to monitor the situation and if necessary would implement a TRO at the cost of the developer.

 

Members discussed the following points:

·  Parking issues around the Manor House

·  Housing mix targets in relation to the Core Strategy

·  Play areas

·  CIL money

·  Planting around the site in relation to hedges rather than trees, if trees to ensure that oak trees are planted.

·  Displacement of parking spaces and visitor parking provided by the developer

·  Slight movement of dwellings in plots 1 and 2

·  To have photovoltaic panels fitted the dwellings

 

RESOLVED – To defer for discussions with the developers on the following points;

·  Planting hedges instead of tress

·  Pulling forward the dwellings on plots 1 and 2

·  Traffic Regulation Order with Section106 agreement

·  Additional 2 parking spaces for visitors

to delegate to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the recommendations set out in the submitted report and to incorporate the conditions listed above.

 

 

Cllr. Procter suggested that the fitting of Photovoltaic Panels become policy rather than an additional condition. He suggested this issue be taken to Joint Plans Panel.

 

 

Cllr. Procter left the meeting at 16:55 after item 110