Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the construction of 13 houses on the former site of Stanks Fire Station, Sherburn Road, Swarcliffe, LS14.

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer recommended refusal for planning permission for the construction of 13 houses at the former Stanks fire station, Sherburn Road.

 

At the start of this item Cllr. Gruen who was substituting for Cllr. Arif addressed the Panel in regard to his position on this application as it is in his ward.

 

Cllr. Gruen informed the Panel that he was aware that the applicant had spoken to Legal Services with the view that Cllr Gruen was sitting on the Panel with a pre- determined view.

 

Cllr. Gruen provided the Panel with a brief history of his involvement with the application.

 

Members noted the following points made by Cllr. Gruen:

·  The applicant had contacted Cllrs P. Gruen and Pauline Grahame to ask for their support of the development. Cllr. Gruen said that he had made no comment whereas Cllr. Pauline Grahame had voiced an objection to the Scheme.

·  The applicant had informed the Councillors that he had the support of a number of the neighbours. The Ward Councillors sent out a questionnaire with a reply slip. Cllr. Gruen said that 80 responses had been received which was significant as no pre post envelopes had been included. Only 2 responses were in favour.

·  The Ward Councillors had received a further letter from the applicant which Cllr. Gruen had thought aggressive and derogatory towards the planning officer. He said that there had been no further contact between himself and the applicant.

·  Cllr. Gruen went on to say that he did not have a pre-determined position but was pre-disposed due to the strong case set out in the report by the officer. However he was interested to hear what the applicant had to say and to see whether the case presented was compelling.

 

Members had visited the site earlier in the day. Plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

 

Members were provided with a brief planning history set out at paragraph 4.0 of the report. It was also noted that during the course of the application a number of amendments had been made to the layout resulting in the deletion of one dwelling; reconfiguration and enlargement of the parking court; repositioning of the off street parking for dwellings fronting on to Stanks Drive; introduction of crime prevention measures; and the intention to retain some trees to Sherburn Road frontage.

 

Members were informed that the dwellings were all two storey although some had rooms in the roof space. The properties were to be 2-3 bedrooms. Members noted revised floor plans had been submitted so that all room sizes and garden sizes complied with space standards. A cross section had been supplied by the applicant to show the difference in levels through one part of the site.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the parking courtyard as it was the Panel’s view that residents would prefer to park at the front of the properties for convenience. There were also concerns raised in relation to the parking courtyard due to its proximity to the trees and the future of those trees it was also a concern that the parking area would over-look the gardens.

 

It was noted that bins were to be positioned at the front of the properties. 

 

Mr Rose the agent was at the meeting and addressed the Panel. He confirmed he accepted Cllr. Gruen’s statement.

 

Mr Rose said how frustrating it had been to amend the plans so many times.

 

He reiterated that the house sizes and the outside space complied with space standards and met the Leeds standard.

 

Mr Rose informed the Members that all the gardens were south facing.

 

Mr Rose explained the reason for the parking courtyard informing Members that the applicant did not want private drives to access onto the main road. He said that to combat the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour the parking courtyard would be overlooked with a view through the wire fences giving a natural view through to the courtyard. He said that there would also be lighting and CCTV in the courtyard.

 

Mr Rose said that bins had been moved to the front of the properties as not able to confirm a suitable position.

 

It was noted that 16 trees were to be planted with only one tree to be moved.

 

In response to a Members question Mr Rose informed the Panel that the  Refuse Service were happy to reverse into the site to collect bins and the use of bins stores as had been proposed.

 

Members expressed their surprise at the close proximity of trees on Sherburn Road to 4 properties in the site. Mr Rose informed the Panel that mature trees would be planted where trees were moved.

 

Members raised concerns on the following points:

·  That properties marked as numbers 7 and 8 were not suitable or attractive to live in

·  The parking courtyard was not suitable and would encroach on privacy of houses in that location.

·  Not enough parking for 2-3 cars per dwelling which would cause parking on the main road close to a busy bus stop

·  The site looked cramped although assurance had been provided that all dwellings now met space standards.

 

Members asked if consideration had been given to redesigning or reducing the number of plots on the site. Members were informed that the dwellings met space standards and were of a similar size to properties around the area therefore there was no reason to reduce the plots.

Cllr. Pauline Grahame attended the meeting saying that she was against the size of this development of 13 houses and was representing the views of constituents set out in the letters that had been received.

 

Cllr. P Grahame said that the original proposal for the site put forward by the fire service was for five properties and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  That Swarcliffe did not have a high crime rate

·  That 2-3 bedroom properties were in demand for that area

·  That parking was an issue as people preferred to park outside their homes

·  That the density around the site was high and that the site should be at the most 8 properties with parking for at least 2 cars per property

·  That she was taking into account the concerns of the residents in the area in relation to the density of the parking in the area and the density of the site.

 

 

Members noted that a high frequency bus stop was located close to the site and had a long run in.  Access to the site had conflicted with the bus stop and modifications had been requested and as a result the applicant provided an access to the back of the site’.

 

It was also noted that there was a drop crossing on Sledmere Place which raised concerns but was not a reason for refusal.

 

Officers informed Members of the following;

·  That the number of parking spaces was right for the size of development. However the design was an issue and due to this residents may not use the dedicated parking space leading to some on street parking.

·  That Leeds City Council guidance in relation separation and distance of properties, floor space and amenity space is quite prescriptive and the applicant had revised plans to address some of the issues raised.

·  That the parking courtyard may cause damage to the roots of some of the trees, however trees located near properties were far enough away as to not suffer root damage.

·  That they had been unable to attend one meeting with the applicant but where negotiations had taken place the applicant had made revisions to address the officers concerns but in doing so had caused other issues.

·  It was the view that the proposed wire fencing to the gardens which looked onto the parking courtyard would not provide privacy to the residents on those plots.

·  A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)  was in place in relation to the bus stop

·  That they had requested a reduction in the number of units

·  Unresolved conflicts were listed at 11.1 of the submitted report.

 

The Head of Development Management provided an explanation of the difficulties with the application saying that there were too many minor issues outstanding that caused concern.

 

Members discussed the following points:

·  The removal of one property to create another access point on to Sherburn Road

·  Refuse collection and the need to have easy access for bins and storage

·  The poor layout of the site which was too cramped

·  Access to the site, the sites proximity to a busy bus stop and a school.

·  To reduce the site to between 8 and 10 dwellings

·  To make the site affordable and sustainable

 

Due to Members discussions the Chair asked if the Panel would want to give consideration to the application being deferred pending further amendments.  However advice was given that this may result in an appeal for non-determination.

 

Instead, the Head of Development Management advised the Panel that in the opinion of officers and in order to make the application acceptable a fundamental redesign of the scheme was required. He recommended a slight amendment to the officer recommendation that in paragraph 1 the sentence starting ‘Furthermore’ should be amended to read;

‘Furthermore, the proposal fails to adequately resolve bin storage arrangements, demonstrate it will not be detrimental to prominent protected trees on site or that the ground level changes required as part of the development would not result in overbearing retaining structures “or issues of overlooking”, boundary treatments, and relationships with adjacent plots, prejudicial to the residential amenity of the occupants and the site appearance.

 

RESOLVED – To refuse the application for the reasons set out in the submitted report with the slight amendment to reason for refusal 1 to include the wording ‘or issues of overlooking’.

 

The amended reason is set out below:

‘Furthermore, the proposal fails to adequately resolve bin storage arrangements, demonstrate it will not be detrimental to prominent protected trees on site or that the ground level changes required as part of the development would not result in overbearing retaining structures or issues of overlooking, boundary treatments, and relationships with adjacent plots, prejudicial to the residential amenity of the occupants and the site appearance.’