Agenda and draft minutes

Councillors Akhtar, Rae and Lloyd attended the site visit held prior to the meeting.

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals.

There were no exempt items.

There were no formal late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any interests in accordance with Leeds City Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’.

No interests were raised.

Apologies of absence were received on behalf of Councillor H Bithell, Councillor E Bromley and Councillor D Jenkins.

Councillor R Jones attended as a substitute on behalf of Councillor Bithell and Councillor Garvani attended as a substitute on behalf of Cllr Jenkins.

To receive the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25^th April 2024, for approval as a correct record.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 25^th April 2024, be approved as an accurate record.

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for a Reserved Matters Application for matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the residential dwelling including the provision of 528 dwellings pursuant to outline application 20/04464/OT; on land south of York Road, Morwick Green (Middle Quadrant), East Leeds Extension, Leeds, LS15.

Members considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer which presented proposals for matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the residential dwelling including the provision of 528 dwellings pursuant to outline application 20/04464/OT, on land south of York Road, Morwick Green (Middle Quadrant), East Leeds Extension, Leeds, LS15.

Panel Members (referenced above) had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

The application was being brought as a position statement and officers were not making a recommendation but presenting key issues to Panel Members for comment.

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.

The applicant’s representatives (Ms Hanbidge and Mr Jackson) attended the meeting and addressed the Panel. Following this, Ms Hanbidge provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to clarity on the use of solar panels, particularly in relation to alleviating the running cost of the air source heat pumps.

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

·  Questions were posed regarding the overall housing mix including the number of 1-bed units and 3-bed units proposed and clarity offered on policy requirements.

·  Responsibility for tree ownership, maintenance, and retention, particularly regarding the community orchid and any relevant conditions that can be applied.

·  The use of trees proposed for the buffer, along the eastern side of the site (towards ELOR), which will likely comprise a variety of species and sizes, pursuant to discharging the landscape condition on the outline consent.

·  Clarity on adequate provision for Swifts, to be agreed pursuant to discharging the biodiversity condition on the outline consent.  It was noted that the applicant is already in touch with Leeds Swifts Group.

·  Clarity on future bus routes/provision through the site and whether this should be shown on plans.

Members’ did not offer further comments in relation to the specific officer questions detailed in the submitted report but did note that the application should be brought back to Panel to be determined. Officers confirmed that this was the intention.

RESOLVED – That the discussion and comments offered be noted.

To consider the report of the Chief Officer on an application for extensions and alterations to existing roof to create new first floor including hip to gable extensions to both sides, dormer window to rear and rooflights to front; new render to both sides; new windows to side and blocking up of existing window to rear; conversion of part of integral garage to habitable room; alterations to existing garage including new pitched roof and rooflights and render to front and rear elevations; widening of existing driveway including removal of part of front boundary wall at 3 North Grove Drive, Wetherby, LS22 7QA.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application seeking planning permission for extensions and alterations to existing roof to create new first floor including hip to gable extensions to both sides, dormer window to rear and rooflights to front; new render to both sides; new windows to side and blocking up of existing window to rear; conversion of part of integral garage to habitable room; alterations to existing garage including new pitched roof and rooflights and render to front and rear elevations; widening of existing driveway including removal of part of front boundary wall at 3 North Grove Drive, Wetherby, LS22 7QA.

The report recommended to the Panel that the matter be granted planning permission subject to conditions as outlined in the submitted report.

The application was brought before the North and East Plans Panel at the request of local Ward Councillor Lamb.

Panel Members (referenced above) had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

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.

Objectors to the application attended the meeting. 2 residents addressed the Panel (Mr Saunders and Ms Preston). Following this, Mr Saunders provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to the following:

·  Specific parts of the proposal they feel are out of character with the local area.

·  The wider street scene and housing mix.

The applicant (Mr Hoffman) attended the meeting. Mr Hoffman addressed the Panel.

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

·  It was confirmed that the applicant under Permitted Development rights, could erect a dormer. Members requested further clarity on Permitted Development rights, and it was noted that whilst the current proposal would not be permitted development as a result of exceeding the maximum volume allowed, alternative proposals, with similar impacts would be possible under permitted development.

·  It was confirmed that there is only 1 x separation distance falling half a metre short of guidance from one of the bedrooms to the nearest window of the nearest rear dwelling which is a conservatory and that distances to all other windows were guidance compliant. It was also noted that the bedroom window has an off-centre position, and the two properties would be angled such that the shortfall in the guidance would be sufficient to mitigate against unreasonably harmful impacts.

·  Further to a point of clarity, officers confirmed that the conservatory / extension at the neighbouring dwelling to the rear at No.6, was erected after the dwelling was built.

Members commented included the following:

·  After attending the site visit on the morning of the meeting, it was of the opinion of a member that the character of the area included a variety of buildings. Another member also commented on the mixed street scene.

·  The constraints of planning policies in terms of what can be taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

To note the next meeting will be on Thursday 24^th October 2024 at 1.30pm.

RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday, 24^th October 2024 at 1.30pm.

The meeting concluded at 15:10.

Please ctrl+click to access the link to view the webcast of the meeting.