Agenda and minutes

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of those parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information

RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information so designated as follows:-

Appendix to Agenda Item 15, Former Pudsey Grangefield School, Mount Pleasant Road, Pudsey, LS28  under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3).

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

Councillor R Wood declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, Airedale House as he was known to the directors.  He also declared a personal and prejudicial item in Agenda Item 14, 65-71 St Ann’s Lane as he was a Director of the Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association.

Councillor B Chastney declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8, Tetley Hall due to his Members hip of the Far Headingley Village Society.  He had not had any active involvement with relation to this application.

Councillor M Coulson declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 15, Former Pudsey Grangefield School as a previous governor of the school.

Councillor P Wadsworth declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 12, Montrose Works as a customer of SBT.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors J Akhtar and J Matthews.

To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012 be confirmed as a correct record.

Members were informed of the outcome of the Inquiry and decision of the Secretary of State into the Clariant and Riverside Mills site.  It was reported that an Inquiry was held in November 2011 and was referred to the Secretary of State.  The appeals were upheld for both sites and outline planning permission had been granted.  The Clariants site would consist of up to 400 dwellings and Riverside Mills up to 150.  Further issues highlighted included traffic management and affordable housing.

It was reported that the National Planning Policy Framework had been published and Members were given a brief summary.  A report would be submitted to Joint Plans Panel in June 2012.

Members were informed of the retirement of Jim Wiggington, Planning Compliance Manager.  Jim had worked for the Authority for over 25 years, spending the last 10 in his current role and Members wished him a happy retirement.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the variation of Condition 10 (hours of operation) of application 08/05019/FU

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the variation of Condition 10 of Application 08/05019/FU at SBT Contracting Ltd, Skip & Hire Waste Transfer Station, Milners Road, Yeadon, Leeds. 

The variation of the condition would extend hours of operation on a Saturday from 0800 to 1300 to 0730 to 1800.  This would allow the Council to take waste for recycling rather than to Skelton Grange landfill.  The application had been brought to Plans Panel due to its sensitivity and local interest.  Objections had been received from a Local Ward Member for reasons related to highway safety and potential noise disturbance.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting.

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

• A noise assessment had indicated that noise levels at the site were acceptable.
• There had been no objections from Highways or Environmental Health.
• It was recommended top approve the application.

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

• The first planning application for the site was made in 2004.
• The site was previously used as a scrap yard.
• There had not been any recorded injury accidents since 1999.
• Conditions to the application – these included limiting the application to one year in the first instance and only one vehicle to use the premises every 30 minutes..
• Noise of vehicles from passing over speed bumps.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Councillor P Wadsworth abstained from the voting on this item.

To receive and consider an attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the redevelopment of former halls of residence site comprising 4 storey residential care home, 3 blocks of 54 flats, 2 blocks of 14 townhouses, conversion of stables to detached house with landscaping and public open space and a conservation area application to demolish former student halls of residence and 11-13 Heathfield Terrace.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application for the demolition of 11-13 Heathfield Terrace and redevelopment of former halls of residence site comprising 4 storey residential care home of 46 apartments (C2 Use class), 3 blocks of 54 flats, 2 blocks of 13 townhouses, conversion of stables to detached house with landscaping and public open space at Tetley Hall, Burton Crescent, Headingley.

The application had been brought to the Panel due to the history of the site, scale of the development and high level of local interest on the proposal.  The scheme had been presented to Panel as a pre-application in April 2011, and Members had visited the site.  Broadly, the scheme had been well received and the Panel had been pleased with the revised layout and design approach.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the site.

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

• The proposals had been reduced from 169 units to 114.  There had also been a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 114 to 100.
• There was a commitment from the developer to introduce a build out scheme on Manor Road to allow parallel parking.
• Proposals to remove trees.
• Highways plans, including footpath widening.
• Provision of affordable housing.

A representative of the Far Headingley Village Society addressed the Panel with objections regarding the application.  These included the following:

• An unacceptable loss of public open space.
• The height, density and spatial positioning of proposed buildings.
• It was felt that the scale was contrary to the Neighbourhood Design Statement and the Conservation Area and needed further scaling down.
• It was requested that the Panel refuse the application and it be deferred for further scaling down.
• Concern regarding the heights of blocks J and K.

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

• The scheme had been re-designed following consultation with officers, the public and Ward Members.
• The new design aimed for minimum disruption to greenspace.
• The scheme would be specifically aimed at couples and elderly residents.
• With reference to concerns regarding building heights, it was reported that Block J would be 27 metres from the nearest property and this was felt to be acceptable.

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

• The development would open up greenspace to the public that was previously private land.
• Concern as to whether car parking would be adequate.
• Issues relating to affordable housing.
• Concerns regarding the provision of social housing and school provision in the area.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified in the report 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 and to include obligations as outlined in the report.

(2)  That the granting of Conservation Area consent for the demolition of Tetley Hall and 11-13 Heathfield Terrace be deferred and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for partial demolition, alterations, two storey and first floor extensions to offices with reconfigured car parking layout.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application for partial demolition, alterations, two storey and first floor extensions to offices, with reconfigured car parking layout at Airedale House, Park Road, Guiseley, Leeds.

The application had been brought to Plans Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor on the grounds that the proposal; would result in an increase of on street car parking to the detriment of residential amenity.

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

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

• The developer was committed to supporting any necessary traffic measures.
• It was felt there was enough on site parking to mitigate any impact following the increase of office space.
• Works to trees.
• Traffic regulation orders.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to conditions outlined in the report.

To receive and 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, awning to rear, boundary fence and entrance gates.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed the Panel of 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 Midway, 111 Queensway, Yeadon, Leeds.

The application had been deferred from the previous meeting of Plans Panel (West) after Members had been made aware of additional information regarding the proposed use of the site.

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

• Further usage of the site than was originally reported included limited use for minor repairs through the night.
• Objections had been received from Ward Councillors, the local MP and residents regarding potential noise disturbance and the loss of a public house as a community facility.
• The premises currently opened until 1.00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.
• There were other public houses within 10 to 15 minutes walking distance.

A Local Ward Councillor addressed the meeting with concerns relating to the application. These included the following.

• The affect on nearby residential properties and the potential development to the rear of the site.
• Reference was made to traffic accidents in the surrounding area.
• An increase in the number of vehicles using the site and neighbouring roads being used as ‘rat runs’.

The applicant addressed the meeting and highlighted the following issues:

• Vehicles would not usually return to the site in between trips.
• Repairs to be carried out through the evening would be for the use of GPS/Communication equipment.
• The majority of staff based at the site would not use their own vehicles.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to conditions outlined in the report.

Councillor N Taggart voted against the decision and requested that his vote be recorded.

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

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application for a part tw storey, part single storey rear extension with relocation of flue and condenser units and addition of access ramp to front at 4 St Anne’s Road, Headingley Leeds.

The application had been deferred from the previous meeting of Plans Panel (West) to allow for a site visit.

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

• There had been no objection to the physical form of the extension. 
• The application was recommended for refusal due to concerns wirth car parking in the area and the impact that increasing the number of covers at the premises would worsen the parking situation.
• Surveys had been carried out to assess car parking on an evening in the area.
• An adjacent car park to the premises was a private pay and display.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the reasons as outlined in the report.

Councillors K Groves and J Hardy voted against the decision for refusal.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for variation of Conditions 7 and 8 of Application 75/25/00257 relating to noise levels and to allow twenty four houroperations Monday to Sunday.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application for the variation of Conditions 7 and 8 of application 75/25/00257 relating to noise levels and to allow 24 hour operations Monday to Sunday at Montrose Works, Woodlands Road, Stanningley, Pudsey.

The application had been referred to Panel due to the number of objections received.

The Panel was shown photographs and site plans of the site.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• Environmental Health recommendations to avoid an impact on residential amenity.
• The proposals supported economic growth and allowed the expansion of the existing business.
• Residential amenity should be improved as activities would be moved further from the nearest residential properties.
• It was recommended that temporary permission be granted for one year in the first instance.

Further issues discussed in response to Members comments and questions included the adoption of Woodlands Road which was not currently suitable for heavy goods vehicles.  It was reported that this could be considered in 12 months time should the application be granted and further assessment of the operations at the site had been carried out.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer and receive a pre-application presentation on masterplan revisions and reserved matters submissions.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer updated the Plans Panel regarding progress on the redevelopment and regeneration of the Kirkstall Forge site; in particular METRO/Network Rail’s plans for a railway station and Commercial Estate Group’s (CEG) plans for mixed use development on the site.

Members were shown photographs of the site, and design examples. 

It was reported that the developers had been working closely with officers and attention was brought to a number of changes since the previous presentation to the Panel.

Issues highlighted included the following:

• Funding for the rail station had been confirmed by the Department for Transport.
• The layout of the development including a commercial hub, housing, landscaping and water gardens.
• Section 106 funding
• Procurement strategy for the delivery of the new train station – a land swap agreement was needed with Network Rail.
• Timescales and future progress.

RESOLVED – That the report and pre-application presentation be noted.

To receive and consider the attached  report of the Chief Planning Officer and receive a pre-application presentation on the redevelopment of 65-71 St Ann’s Lane, including partial demolition of the main block and demolition of the gatehouse, to be replaced with a new 3 storey extension, to form 15 flats and the construction of a pair of semi-detached properties.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a pre-application presentation for a proposal for the redevelopment of 65-71 St Ann’s Lane, Kirkstall, including partial demolition of the main block and demolition of the gatehouse to be replaced with a new 3 storey extension, to form 15 flats and the construction of a pair of semi-detached properties.

Members attention was brought to concerns that had been raised by officers that were outlined in the report.

The applicants representative addressed the Panel and highlighted the following issues:

• It was intended to retain the frontage of the main villa.
• Poor quality extensions needed to be demolished and there had been damage to foundations by tree roots.
• Reclaimed stone would be used for the extension.
• There had not been a tree report or ecology study carried out – the applicant would be willing to do this as part of the application.

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

• Concern regarding the scale of the link building.
• Concern regarding the loss of green space.
• The applicant had a preference to keep the existing building.
• The existing buildings were not listed or in a conservation area.
• Members indicated a preference to retain the beech tree on the site.

RESOLVED – That the report and pre-application presentation be noted.

Councillor P Wadsworth left the meeting during the discussion on this item

Councillor J Hardy left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.

To receive and consider the attached report of the chief Planning Officer regarding an application  for the change of use of a former school including extensions to 49 flats and listed building application for internal and external alterations, partial demolition and extensions.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use to a former school including extensions to form 49 flats and a listed building application for internal and external alteration, partial demolition and extensions.

Members had attended a site visit prior to the meeting and photographs and plans of the site were displayed.

Issues highlighted in relation to the applications included the following:

• The site was in a residential area and the Pudsey Conservation Area.
• The proposals had received support from local Ward Members but there were concerns regarding car parking.
• 23 objections had been received from local residents.
• It was felt that the proposals met criteria in relation to the context of the National Planning Policy Framework.
• The scheme would not be economically viable without the proposed extension.  This view was supported by asset management.
• It was considered that the maximum viable number of parking spaces would be 70.

A local Ward Member addressed the meeting.  It was reported that whilst there was no objection in principal regarding the conversion of the building to flats, that the car parking situation was not acceptable.  The Panel was informed of existing problems with car parking in and around the area and it was requested that a residents parking scheme be considered.

The applicant’s representative addressed the meeting.  The following issues were highlighted:

• The site had suffered severe vandalism and needed to be re-used.
• The scheme had received local support.
• It was felt that 70 car parking spaces was sufficient.  Motorcycle and cycle storage would also be available and the site was close to public transport links.
• No further parking could be made available on the site without the loss of proposed apartments and this would affect the viability of the scheme.

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

• The premises had not been in use for almost three years and it was felt they could become unusable if there was further damage.
• Costs of implementing a residential parking scheme in the area.
• It was felt that the site would not exacerbate the current parking problems in the area.
• Members indicated a preference to support the scheme but wished to see further negotiations regarding on street car parking in the area.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Plans Panel (West)

Councillors J Harper and K Groves left the meeting during the discussion on this item.

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1.30 p.m.