Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 82 affordable dwellings, two new vehicular access points, associated open space and infrastructure and ball strike netting at former Hough Side High School Site, Hough Top, Swinnow, Leeds, LS13.

Members considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer which presented proposals for the erection of 82 affordable dwellings, two new vehicular access points, associated open space and infrastructure and ball strike netting at former Hough Side High School Site, Hough Top, Swinnow, Leeds, LS13.

The report recommended to the Panel that the application be approved, subject to specified conditions, as set out within the submitted report.

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and contents of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

Additional comments received which were not available when the agenda was published were read out at the meeting. These included representations from Ward Members, residents, Sport England, and Leeds City Council’s Landscape Team which provided further information in relation to:

·  Highways issues, including existing parking arrangements, access for emergency services, congestion issues and the inclusion of multiple access points.

·  Concern regarding children’s safety in terms of the nearby school.

·  Drainage issues.

·  The consultation processes and availability of plans.

·  Detail in the minutes.

·  Th general support for affordable housing.

·  Boundary treatments along Hough Top.

·  Impact on biodiversity.

·  Impact from anti-social behaviour and crime.

·  The design of the proposals.

·  Ecology concerns.

·  Impact of the ball strike netting.

·  Noise concerns for new residents due to proximity of the football pitch.

·  Viability considerations and procedural matters.

·  Bias concerns regarding the submitted Panel report.

Objectors to the application attended the meeting. Residents addressed the Panel. Following this, residents provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to the following:

·  Inclusion of Harley Drive as an access point.

·  The design of the properties not being representative of the nearby properties on Hough Top, and similarly quality of design.

·  Massing and location of the apartment block.

·  Options available for football parking.

·  Exclusion of the ball strike netting to plans associated with the planning application.

·  Concern regarding the second consultation period.

The applicant/applicant’s representative of the application attended the meeting. The applicant addressed the Panel. Following this, the applicant provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members,which in summary, related to the following:

·  Options to re-design the scheme.

·  Extension of the consultation period.

·  Access arrangements including Harley Drive.

·  Housing mix of the apartment block and it’s space standards.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  Mitigation measures available further to concerns raised regarding the ball strike netting. It was suggested that a condition be included regarding the receipt of a more detailed boundary treatment, and material options available regarding the ball strike netting.

·  Methods of re-advertisement of the application.

·  The consideration of a site visit not taking place.

·  Policy compliancy.

·  Use of materials.

·  Clarity regarding the gradient of the football pitches adjacent to the proposed site.

·  There are two sub-stations on Harley Drive.

·  Leeds City Council’s landscape team are not in support of the proposal.

·  The use of air source heat pumps and policy compliancy.

·  The importance of affordable housing.

·  Concern regarding design elements of the proposals and the need to receive further information from various council departments.

Upon voting, an alternative motion was put forward to the officer recommendation. The alternative motion to defer the application was moved and seconded. It was

RESOLVED – To defer the application further to the following:

·  The report did not adequately consider design of the site in the round, landscape and tree replacement proposals and were unconvinced by the boundary treatment proposed on the western boundary. 

·  Members requested that a tree, landscape, and design officer be in attendance when the item is returned to the South and West Plans Panel to answer questions.

·  To re-consider the design of the houses and apartment block to improve quality and explain or improve landscape strategy and why stone transition was not proposed from Hough Top Road.

Cllr Cohen left the meeting at 17:55, at the conclusion of this item.