Agenda and minutes

In the absence of Councillor Taggart, the Panel was asked to nominate a Chair for the meeting.  A nomination was made on behalf of Councillor Harper, and following a vote by Members present, it was

RESOLVED – That Councillor Harper be appointed to the chair for the meeting.

To declare any personal/prejudicial interest for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Groves and Taggart.

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel West meeting held on 25^th May 2011

(minutes attached)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2011 be confirmed as a correct record.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on appeal decisions relating to:

Application 09/04512/FU – Appeal against non-determination of an application for the use of land as a secure off-site car park at Sentinel car park – Warren House Lane Yeadon LS19

and

Application 09/05365/FU – Appeal against refusal of permission for the change of use of unit 1A from general industrial use to use for off-airport car parking at Unit 1A Leeds Bradford Industrial Estate Harrogate Road LS19

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to appeal decisions in respect of the following applications:

• Application 09/04512/FU (Sentinel) – Appeal against non determination of an application for the use of land as a secure off site car park at Sentinel Car Park, Warren House Lane, Yeadon, Leeds, LS19 7FT
• Application 09/05365/FU (Learmonth) – Appeal against refusal of permission for the change of use of Unit 1A from general industrial use to use for off-airport car parking at Unit 1A, Leeds Bradford Airport Industrial Estate, Harrogate Road, Leeds, LS19 7WP

Members were reminded of the details of the applications and shown site designs and pictures.  It was reported that the appeals were heard at a joint public inquiry and were both subsequently upheld and permanent planning permission was issued.

An summary of the Inspector’s case was given and the following issues were highlighted:

• Current demand for parking
• Growth of the airport
• Negotiations on Section 106 agreements for transport
• There would be no harm to green belt land
• Future masterplan and airport surface strategy
• Customer choice

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• Highway safety due to increased transport and previous concern regarding this in relation to the Learmonth application – it was reported that there would be a shuttle bus service to and from the car park which picked up and dropped off at the airport forecourt.
• Impact on airport plans – there had been concern from Leeds Bradford International Airport that this could lead to a potential loss of revenue which in turn could affect other public transport proposals in relation to Section 106 agreements and the core strategy.

The Panel was also given an update on appeals relating to Riverside Mills, Horsforth and the Leeds Girls High School Site

RESOLVED – That the appeal decisions be noted.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a planning application and Conservation Area consent for the demolition of tannery buildings, laying out of access road and erection of 12 houses with car parking and landscaping

(report attached)

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting.  Members of the Panel had also visited the site prior to the meeting.

It was reported that the applications submitted were for the demolition of The Tannery building and for it to be replaced with 12 dwellings.  A previous application had been withdrawn which had included the retention of the front of the Tannery buildings.

The applications had been recommended for refusal.  Amongst the reasons for recommending refusal were the following:

• The building was in a conservation area
• Highway safety issues
• Design and layout of the site

The Panel heard representations from the applicant. It was reported that the majority of the buildings had been empty since 2006 and active marketing had not been successful in attracting new tenants.  The buildings were now in an un-lettable condition and a decision had been taken to re-develop the site.  Costs to repair the site were also prohibitive.

The applicant’s agent also addressed the Panel.  He made reference to the fact that the application had been amended to accommodate previous concern and it was felt that the highway layout  was adequate with space to turn the largest vehicles.

Further representations were made by a representative from Highways and it was suggested that the applicant has further discussion with Highways regarding revision of the plans.

Members discussed two possible options for the future of the site and, following votes, narrowly supported the option of full demolition to facilitate improved access subject to the scheme being of a high quality

RESOLVED – That the applications be refused for the reasons specified in the submitted report.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for replacement part 2/3/4 storey care home with 34 self contained flats, 39 dementia/respite/nursing care rooms, chapel, lounges, dining area, activity rooms and function room with car parking and landscaping

(report attached)

Plans and photographs of the site and proposed development were displayed at the meeting.  Members of the Panel had also visited the site prior to the meeting.

It was reported that a previous application had been refused in June 2010 and the following main amendments to the application were highlighted:

• The plans had been amended to bring the building in at both ends
• The roof had been designed so it was further into the building
• The building would be further into the site
• More natural materials would be used

The application had been recommended for refusal.  Amongst the reasons for recommending refusal were the following:

• Design issues
• Conservation issues
• Highways and Car Parking
• Amenity issues for local residents

The applicant’s agent addressed the Panel.  The Panel was informed that advice had been considered since the previous application; that reasonable changes had been made to the plans and that all necessary consultation had been carried out.  The previous application had been substantially bigger and changes had been made to the side elevations.  Members were asked to consider the nature of the application and the employment opportunities it would create.

Members discussed the application in further detail and it in summary concluded that the changes had not been substantial enough since the previous application.

RESOLVED – That the applications be refused for the reasons specified in the submitted report.

Thursday 21^st July 2011 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall Leeds

Thursday, 21 July at 1.30 p.m. in the Civic Hall, Leeds.