Agenda item

 To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the siting of one static residential caravan and renovation of the old telephone exchange building into an amenity block with associated ground works and landscaping at The Old Telephone Exchange Site, Coal Road, Whinmoor, LS14 2SA

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer related to a proposal for the siting of one static residential caravan and renovation of the old telephone exchange building to an amenity block with associated ground works and landscaping at the Old Telephone Exchange site, Coal Road, Leeds.

Members were advised that the application site was Brownfield land within designated Green Belt.

Members were also advised of the following:-

·  Need for 28 new pitches for Gypsy and Travellers by 2022 as set out in the Core Strategy;

·  National Planning and Policy Framework Guidance for Travellers and Gypsies

·  Personal circumstances of the applicant

·  Development Plans Panel had not considered the site as part of Site Allocation Plan.

·  Personal and temporary planning consent for 3 years only considered to be a pragmatic solution

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

Members were informed of the following points:

·  The proposal of a static caravan with decking on two sides;

·  A mobile caravan would be positioned to the northern side of the site. It was noted that planning permission was not needed for this;

·  The rebuilt telephone exchange building to be used as an amenity building would comprise of a bathroom and a kitchen;

·  A wood burning stove was to be installed within the amenity building requiring a flue inserting into the roof;

·  The proposed courtyard area surrounded by the amenity building and the caravans was to be a hardstanding of tarmac;

·  Two car parking spaces were proposed;

·  The family comprised of a father and four children aged from 11 to 21 years.

One letter of objection had been received with objections as set out at point 6.1 of the submitted report.

Members noted that Shadwell Parish Council had also raised objections and were set out at point 6.2 of the submitted report.

The Panel discussed at length the following points:-

·  Ownership of the land. Cllr. Procter informed the Panel that of the land identified on the submitted map only that within the black line belonged to the applicant and that further land identified within the red line belonged to the Mexborough Estate. It was noted that no comments had been received from the Mexborough Estate;

·  The untidiness of the site;

·  What enforcement action had been taken;

·  Requirement for enforcement action to be taken;

·  Proposed drainage and sewage services for the site;

·  Design of static caravans;

·  Space around the application site and access arrangements to a triangular area which would effectively be cut off;

·  Access to and from the site.

Members were advised that the applicant had provided a signed Certificate A which was taken in good faith as proof that the land was in the ownership of the applicant.

Members were also advised that the consideration of the planning application and the need or otherwise for enforcement action in respect of the current use of the site, and any formal action to require the site to be tidied, were separate matters. Accordingly, the planning application had to be determined on its individual planning merits regardless of any formal enforcement action the council may take.

The Highways Officer informed the Panel that access would be provided to fields and this one site when Coal Road is closed due to the proposed new orbital road.

Planning Officers provided clarification in relation to:-

·  The brownfield status of the site with reference to the definition of previously developed land as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, and

·  Traveller Sites using DCLG Planning and Policy for Traveller Sites which also provided clarification on special or personal circumstances of an applicant.

Members’ attention was drawn to 2.4 of the submitted report which advised Members that this was a traveller family, a father and 4 children. It was noted that there were similar sites located within the city which traveller families use as a base.

At the conclusion of the discussions, Councillor Procter moved a motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:- 

·  Inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

·  Case not made for special circumstances;

·  Site is not brownfield in its entirety.

Councillor Wadsworth seconded the motion. On being put to the vote, Councillor Procter’s motion fell.

RESOLVED – To grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report.

Members requested that a compliance investigation be undertaken in respect of the existing use of the site and also whether a Section 2015 Notice (untidy land) can be served.