Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor K Groves and Councillor J Akhtar.  Councillor J McKenna was in attendance as substitute for Councillor K Groves.

.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the Plans Panel West held on 12 January 2012.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2012 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute no 95 – Application 11/03417/FU – Springfield Mill, Stanningley Road, Stanningley, Pudsey, LS13 3LY

Amend the last sentence of the first paragraph to read ‘It had been brought to Plans Panel due to the level of local representation and because the proposal constituted out of centre retail development’

To receive and consider the attached report of the Director of City Development.

The report of the Director of City Development informed the Panel that following consideration by the Executive Board, the City Council’s Local Development Framework (Publication Draft) had been approved for public consultation.  The consultation period was 28 February to 12 April 2012 (5.00 p.m.) and the purpose of the report was to make Members aware of the consultation and broad scope and content of the document.

It was reported that the Core Strategy formed part of the Local Development Framework as proposed by the Council and set the strategic context for long term growth in the city for site allocation, development planning and neighbourhood planning.  Members attention was also brought to issues detailed within the report including Spatial Policies and housing allocations.

Members were informed that the Core Strategy would be considered by Development Plans Panel and Executive Board before submission to Full Council and then the Secretary of State for approval.

A concern was raised regarding recording of discussion from informal workshops and issues surrounding Policy H3.  It was reported that previous points raised could still be considered under the ongoing consultation.  It was further reported that the Core Strategy had been brought to Plans Panel  as policies within would have an impact on decision making.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application to demolish vacant school building and erect a 60 bed care home with car parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application to demolish a vacant school building and erect a 60 bed care home with car parking and landscaping at land off Bridge Street and Mill Lane, Otley.  The application had been referred to Plans Panel for determination due to the significance of the site and the development and its impact on the local area.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting.  Site plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The proposed development was in Otley Conservation Area.
• The site would be accessed using existing arrangements.
• Members were reminded of the pre-application presentation that had been received in August 2011.  Members had been broadly supportive of the plans but had stressed that careful consideration needed to be given to residents of Manor Street.
• The proposed building was not out of scale or relatively large for the site.
• Distances between the proposed building and houses on Manor Street were in line with policy, however there were some flats that were felt to be too close.  Projections of shading from the proposed building were shown.
• There had been support from local residents and Otley Town Council for the re-use of the site and for the provision of a care home.
• Further to the problems that would be caused by shading from the proposed development, it was reported that further negotiations had been sought with the developer and that it be recommended that the application be refused.

The applicants agent addressed the meeting.  The following issues were highlighted along with responses to Members’ questions:

• The development would provide a much needed care home for Otley.
• There had been lengthy negotiations with planning officers and extensive consultation with local residents, including those on Manor Street.
• It was felt that the objections based on overshadowing should be rejected.  These objections were not made at the pre-application stage and there had been support from residents of Manor Street.
• Building work on the site could begin immediately.
• The building would have an undercroft due to the slope on the site and requirements of the Environment Agency due to the land being part of the flood plain.  The undercroft would be used for storage.
• Further options including lowering the building and using other flood proofing measures than building an undercroft.  The developer felt that the scheme proposed was reasonable and appropriate and alternative building solutions had been considered.
• Suggestions to have a T-shaped building.  It was reported that this would have to be 3 storeys and would not satisfy the operational running of a dementia care home.
• It was felt that the proposals met all design guidelines.

A Local Ward Member addressed the meeting and answered Members questions.  He acknowledged the fact that consultation had taken place with residents from Manor Street, the need for the redevelopment of the site and the provision of a care home.  There were however concerns regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

To consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of Public House to a Private Hire Office with alterations comprising the addition of an awning to the rear, boundary fence and entrance gates.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application for the change of use of a public house to a private hire office, with alterations comprising the addition of an awning to the rear, boundary fence and entrance gates at the former ‘Midway’ public house on Queensway in Yeadon.

The application had been brought to the Panel at the request of a Ward Councillor who objected to the proposal for reasons related to visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The property was in a mainly residential area.
• There were very little external changes proposed other than the provision of a covered servicing area and fencing.
• Planning permission had previously been given for some flats at the rear of the site.
• The site would be open to the public until 9.00 p.m.
• Objections had been received from 2 Ward Councillors, the local MP and 5 local residents.  The plans had also received support from 5 local residents.
• Objections related to loss of amenity and the loss of a public house as a community facility.
• The applicant had submitted some recent information stating that some vehicles would need to access the site through the night.

RESOLVED – That further to recent information submitted by the applicant, the application be deferred for further consideration.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the laying out of an access road and erection of 45 houses with garages and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application for the laying out of an access road, erection of 45 houses with garages and landscaping at Holt Avenue, Adel.

The application had been brought to Plans Panel due to the history associated with the site, scale of the development and the high level of local interest in the proposal.  The principle of development was allowed on appeal when outline planning permission was granted for housing following a public inquiry.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting.  Site plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

Further issues highlighted that related to the application included the following:

• An addition to the Section 106 proposal – this would offer £35,000 for traffic signal improvements at the junction with Otley Road.
• The site had previously been arable land.
• The development would contain 15% affordable housing.
• Each property would have 2 parking spaces.
• Landscaping would take place at the rear of the site which was lined with treets that were subject to Tree Preservation Orders.
• Plans showing access to the site were shown.

A representative of the Adel Association addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

• The land was Greenfield and it was felt should not be built on until all other areas had been used.
• The close proximity to the Grade I listed Church.
• Increased traffic.
• Primary schools in the area were full.
• Access to the north west area behind the site – any future applications would be opposed by the Adel Association.

In response to questions from Members, it was reported that the developers had consulted with the Adel Association regarding the materials to be used.  Whilst it was felt that the materials offered were preferential to brick, they were still felt to be bland.

The applicants agent addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

• The development was based on the Inspector’s decision.
• There were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees – reference to revisions to satisfy consultees was made.
• Reference to Section 106 proposals.
• Conservation area issues, Tree Preservation Orders and maintaining of the boundary hedge.
• Supported use of materials by the Adel Association.
• Affordable housing provision was grouped together by the Otley Road side of the site.  This would give easier access to public transport.
• There were no plans in the near future to apply for developments beyond the north west boundary of the site.

Further discussion was held regarding the materials to be used and it was proposed to amend the condition outlined in the report regarding the use of materials.  Concern was also raised by Members regarding the decision of the Inspector and the impact on the decision of the Panel.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified and the completion of a Section 106 agreement within 3 months of the date of the resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which refers to an application for the change of use of public open space to domestic gardens.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application that sought planning permission for the change of use of an area of public open space to inclusion within domestic rear gardens at land to the rear of Riverside Gardens, Otley.  The land was provided as public open space in conjunction with the adjoining housing development in the 1990s and vested with Otley Town Council.  Due to problems with the use/abuse of the area in subsequent years, the Town Council had proposed that the area be sold off to form enlarged private gardens for the adjoining houses.

The application had been referred to Plans Panel for determination due to the history of the site including that the application land is required to be vested as public open space.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The land would be fenced off for private gardens.
• The land had become neglected and a source of nuisance.
• There had been general agreement with the majority of adjoining homeowners regarding the proposed re-use of the land.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning officer regarding an application for part two storey, part single storey extension with relocation of flue and condenser units and addition of access ramp to front.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed the Panel of an application for a rear extension to a restaurant enabling an increase in the amount of covers in the restaurant from 72 to 100 plus the relocation of an existing flue and the addition of an access ramp to the front.

The application had been referred to the Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor on the grounds that a previous application for a neighbouring restaurant had also being referred.

Members were shown site plans and photographs of the site.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• Representations from local residents included concerns regarding car parking in the surrounding residential streets.
• A petition of support had been received.
• Reference was made to the previous application to a nearby restaurant.  It was reported that was for a smaller extension and didn’t seek to increase the capacity of the building.

The applicants agent addressed the meeting.  The following issues were highlighted:

• The application would enable the use of the upstairs of the premises as a function room which would be operated by a booking system.
• It was not felt there would be an increased need for car parking.  Many of the staff lived locally/on site and a survey showed that many customers did not use cars to attend the restaurant.
• The applicant was willing to limit the number of covers to 100.
• The application would provide external and internal improvements with improved disabled facilities.
• There was an agreement with a neighbouring property regarding the servicing of the yard at the rear.  There would also be improvements to this area including resurfacing.

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

• The offer to reduce the number of covers to 100 was to reduce external activity.
• It was suggested that the item be deferred to allow a site visit in light of additional information regarding improvements to the rear and the offer to reduce the number of covers.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow a site visit and consideration of additional information provided.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use from office (Class B1) to college (Class D1) of Longfield House, Victoria House (entirely) and Park House (1^st and 2^nd floors), with associated alterations and extensions and formation of additional car parking.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which refers to a retrospective application for change of use of first floor from private members pool/snooker club to form bas (A4)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a proposal to seek the change of the use of a Private Members club at first floor level to a bar (A4) forming part of the existing bar to the ground floor.  The premises already operated as applied for and the application was therefore retrospective.

The application had been brought to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor on the grounds that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in the number of bars in Headingley Town Centre.

The following issues were highlighted in reference to the application and in response to comments and questions from Members:

• The upstairs at the premises had been converted from the use of snooker/pool to a bar.
• Main concerns involved impact on residential amenity.
• There had not been any objections from the Council’s Licensing section.
• Concern from Members regarding complaints made about the premises.
• There had not been any enforcement issues with the premises.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted in line with the ooficer recommendation but with the removal of conditions 1 and 6 as superfluous on the first floor retrospective application.

Councillors Chastney and Matthews requested that their votes against this decision be recorded.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of two part 6 storey and part 7 storey blocks of 72 student cluster flats (300 bedrooms) with landscaping and car parking.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application which proposed the demolition of existing commercial buildings on site and the erection of two part 6 and 7 storey blocks comprising a total of 72 cluster flats, providing 300 bedrooms and laying out of landscaping and 37 car parking spaces.

Members were shown site plans and photographs of the site.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application and discussion following Members comments and questions included the following:

• Loss of employment land – this was acceptable within policy guidelines.
• Reference to Section 106 agreements.
• Colour schemes used – it would not be sought to use previous colour schemes used on neighbouring buildings.
• Concern was expressed regarding available amenity space for residents.

RESOLVED – That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement within 3 months of the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include obligations outlined in the report.

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday, 29^th March at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 29 March 2012 at 1.30 p.m.