Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

  The Panel was informed that the Chief Planning Officer, Phil Crabtree, was currently in hospital, with Members sending their best wishes for a speedy recovery

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 consideration of the following part of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view 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 as designated as follows:

  The reports referred to in minutes 117 and 118 under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds they contain information relating to the financial or business of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would release sensitive financial information.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

  There were no formal late items, however Panel Members were in receipt of the following additional information to be considered at the meeting:

  Application 10/04398/FU – 34 Thorp Arch Park LS23 – additional photographs tabled by Officers (minute 110 refers)

  Application 10/03753/EXT – South Queen Street Mill Morley – An amended report to rectify a minor error at paragraph 1.1 (minute 120 refers).  A copy of this amended report had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting

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

  The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct:

  Applications 09/03259/FU and 09/04090/FU – The Flint Mill Thorp Arch LS23 – Councillor Procter declared personal interests as he knew the applicant (minutes 104 and 105 refer)

  Applications 10/01593/\FU and 10/01594/CA – Wetherby Health Centre St James’ Street LS22 – Councillor Lyons declared a personal interest as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the application (minute 99 refers)

  Application 10/03994/FU and 10/04601/CA – Commercial Street Morley LS27 – Councillor Grahame declared a personal and prejudicial interest through knowing the representative who had registered to speak on this item (minute 116 refers)

  Application 10/03994/FU and 10/04601/CA – Commercial Street Morley LS27 – Councillor Finnigan declared a personal interest through being a member of Morley Town Council which had commented on the applications (minute 116 refers)

  Applications 10/02584/EXT and 10/03753/EXT – Park Mills and South Queen Street Mill Morley LS27 – Councillor Finnigan declared personal interests through being a member of Morley Town Council which had commented on the applications (minutes 117,118,119 and 120 refer)

To receive any apologies for absence.

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gruen who was substituted for by Councillor Nash and Councillor Taylor

  The Head of Planning Services informed Panel that in respect of applications 10/01593/FU and 10/01594/CA – Wetherby Health Centre St James’ Street LS22 –that an amicable agreement on the outstanding issues had now been reached, with an improved financial contribution towards parking having been agreed and that this matter could now be dealt with under delegated powers

  In respect of application 10/02705/FU – Sturton Grange Farm LS25 – a meeting with the objectors’ consultant to discuss aspects of the application had been delayed due to the bad weather, therefore a request to withdraw this item from the agenda had been made, with the applicant indicating he did not object to such a deferral

  RESOLVED -  To withdraw the above items from the agenda

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 be approved

  The Head of Planning Services informed the Panel on the latest position regarding the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

  Members were informed that there had been a successful challenge by a developer to the Secretary of State’s revocation of the RSS.  However the Government had affirmed its intention to introduce legislation to abolish the RSS and the Government’s Chief Planning Officer had written to Local Planning Authorities advising them of this and that his letter should be regarded as a material planning consideration

  This letter had now been challenged and an injunction was in place which meant that the information to contained could not be taken into account

  Members were advised that it was for the Panel to consider the issues and the weight to be given to any matters where the RSS was relevant and make decisions accordingly

  Councillor Grahame again requested that he be provided with a copy of RSS

  Reference was also made to the recently published draft Localism Bill which would have implications for the planning system.  Members were informed that a report on this would be presented to the January meeting of Joint Plans Panel

Further to minute 40 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009 where Panel resolved to confirm its previous decision to refuse an application for the extraction of coal and other minerals, alterations to landform with restoration to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant

(report attached)

  Further to minute 40 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009, where Panel resolved to confirm its previous decision to refuse an application for the extraction of coal and other minerals, together with land restoration, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant.  The appeal was dealt with at a Public Inquiry and was dismissed by the Secretary of State

  RESOLVED – To note the report

Further to minute 39 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009 where Panel resolved to refuse an application for the erection of 5 wind turbines and associated development, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant

(report attached)

  Further to minute 39 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th July 2009 where Panel resolved to refuse an application for the erection of 5 wind turbines and associated development, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the Inspector’s decision on the appeal lodged by the applicant.  The appeal was dealt with at a Public Inquiry and was dismissed by the Inspector

  The Head of Planning Services stated that the applicants had indicated they are likely to challenge the decision on the grounds that insufficient weight  was given by the Inspector to the RSS at the time the decision was made which was after the first challenge to the Secretary of State’s letter abolishing RSS was upheld by the Courts

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for engineering works to create wildlife pond with associated landscaping

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought retrospective approval for engineering works to create a wildlife pond with associated landscaping at The Flint Mill Thorp Arch LS23, which was situated in the Green Belt and in a Special Landscape Area

  A further representation from Boston Spa Parish Council was reported which reiterated their objection to the application

  In response to a comment regarding possible contamination from the pond into the water supply, Members were informed that the Environment Agency had been consulted on the application and following the receipt of additional information were not objecting to the application

  Members noted the Parish Council’s comments and the isolated location of the site

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a gazebo on island in proposed wildlife pond, with footbridge

(report attached)

  With reference to the previous minute, Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking retrospective approval for a gazebo on an island in the wildlife pond with footbridge at The Flint Mill Thorp Arch LS23

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that as the site was in the Green Belt the development was by definition inappropriate, causing harm to the Green Belt, although Officers were of the view that very special circumstances had been demonstrated to outweigh that harm

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the condition set out in the submitted report

Further to minute 65 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th September 2010, where Panel deferred consideration of the application for the erection of detached 5 bedroom house with attached double garage to equestrian/kennels/cattery, to enable further information to be provided and consultation with Ward Members, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  Further to minute 65 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 30^th September 2010 where Panel deferred consideration of the application for additional information, Panel considered a further report

  Plans, photographs, graphics and precedent images were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that the size of the gym and storage area had been reduced by 28sqm and that the proposed landscaping had now been clarified but that the design of the 5 bedroom detached house remained the same, this being a modern, cedar panelled dwelling which met high levels of sustainability in terms of materials and construction methods

  A late representation from Councillor R Procter was reported and read out to Panel, with Members noting her continuing concerns at the proposals and the small reduction in the size of the building

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the site was located in the Green Belt; that such development was against policy and if approved, could significantly undermine that policy leading to further inappropriate development in the Green Belt

·  concerns that some of the factual information contained in the report had not been substantiated

·  that the proposals would result in the removal of derelict buildings on the site but that a more traditional-designed property might be more suitable than the one being proposed

·  that whilst the design was innovative there were differing views as to whether it was suitable on this particular site and addressed issues raised by the Planning Inspector on previous, unsuccessful applications

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to approve the

application be not agreed and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out possible reasons for refusal of the application based up the Panel’s concerns that it was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and inappropriate design in the context of the site

Further to minute 86 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010, where Panel deferred determination of the application for further information, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a replacement 4 bedroom dwelling house

(report attached)

  Further to minute 86 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 when Panel deferred determination of the application for additional information, Panel considered a further report

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that following Members’ comments, further discussions had taken place with the applicant and although the massing of the proposed house had not been altered, revisions had been made to the southern elevation

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  that 7 and 9 Linton Road were identical in design and read as a pair, with the effect of this being spoiled if the proposal was approved

·  concerns about the height of the property and the roof design

As Members seemed to be indicating a wish to refuse the application,

the Chair invited the applicant’s agent, who was in attendance, to address the Panel

  Members considered how to proceed. Following a proposal that the application be not accepted the vote was narrowly lost

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

  (Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Lyons required it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter)

Further to minute 84 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 where Panel resolved to defer determination of the application for a detached two storey annexe accommodation with attached garage and car port to side for additional information, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  Further to minute 84 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 where Panel resolved to defer determination of the application for additional information, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for a two storey annexe accommodation with attached garage and car port to side at Applegarth Orchard Lane Linton LS22

  Panel was referred to information provided by Highways as set out in the submitted report which confirmed there were no objections to the proposals on highways grounds

  3 additional letters of representation were reported, with the Panel’s Lead Officer reading out the comments from Councillor R Procter who had objected to the application

  If minded to approve the application, Officers requested additional conditions relating to approved plans, submission of existing and finished floor levels and an amendment to condition 5 relating to use of the property, whereby this was tied to family members of the occupants of the host property only

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the proposals were for an additional dwelling

·  that the footprint of the annexe was the same as the existing garage

·  that the proposed amendment to condition 5 might be suitable to the current situation but concerns about the implications of the condition if/when circumstances changed

The Panel’s legal representative stated that if the application was

approved with the amended condition 5 an application would need to be made to request any removal/variation of that condition.  If that occurred, consideration would need to be given as to the reasonableness of that condition at that time

  Members continued to consider the matter

  The Panel’s Lead Officer offered assurances on how any future request to remove or vary that condition could be dealt with

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, including additional conditions requiring the scheme to be built in accordance with the approved plans; details of existing and finished floor levels  and ground levels to be submitted and condition no 5 to be amended to read ‘ that the annexe shall remain in Class C3(A) use and shall be occupied by family members of the occupants of Applegarth Orchard Drive Linton’ and that a note be placed on the computer record for this property that any application to remove or vary condition 5 or to create a separate dwelling must be determined by Panel

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a single storey side and rear extension

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for a wrap-around single storey side and rear extension at 51 Pondsfields Drive Kippax LS25

  Members were informed that the side and rear extensions could be built under Permitted Development if a small section at the rear was omitted

  Concerns had been raised locally about the terracing effect of the proposals and that approval of the application could set a precedent

  Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following issues:

·  concerns about the location of the bin store, with Officers advising that the provision of these details had been conditioned

·  the proposed use of the front garden to provide 2 car parking spaces

·  the terracing effect which would be created in the street

As Members seemed minded to refuse the application, the Chair

invited the applicant’s agent who was in attendance, to address the Panel

  RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application be not accepted and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out possible reasons for refusal of the application based upon the Panel’s concerns relating to the impact of the proposals on the streetscene and the spatial setting and character of the area

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the removal of condition 4 of application 31/143/01/FU restricting use of flat roof as terrace and erection of glazed screen to existing flat roofed rear extension

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  Officers presented the report which sought the removal of a restrictive condition imposed upon application 31/143/01/FU at 34 Thorp Arch Park to enable the use of a flat roof of a single storey extension as a terrace.  Permission was also being sought for the erection of a glazed balcony to the edge of the proposed terrace

  Receipt of an additional letter of representation was reported

  In respect of the possible compromise solution as set out in the submitted report which would see the glazed balcony being aligned further inwards level to the edge of the dormer window, Panel was informed that the neighbour at 32 Thorp Arch Park did not consider this resolved his concerns about the proposals

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant and an objector who attended the meeting

  Additional photographs were tabled by Officers upon the request of Councillor Procter

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  concerns that the resident of 32 Thorp Arch Park was not fully aware of what was being proposed and the level of impact on his amenity

·  that Panel was being asked to approve an application for which no plan existed (in respect of the compromise solution) and that the application should be deferred to enable revised plans to be submitted

·  that following the representations by the applicant and the points raised by Members, there was sufficient clarity to enable Panel to defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer

The Panel’s legal representative was asked to advise on what was

being sought of Members on this application

  The Head of Development and Regulatory outlined the application and stated that in legal terms, Panel could lift the condition and grant permission in accordance with the recommendation, or agree in principle to move the glazed balcony to align with the edge of the dormer window and then defer and delegate final approval to Officers

  The Head of Planning Services voiced his concerns about whether the very detailed consideration being given to this householder application was the most productive use of time

  RESOLVED -  That the grant of planning permission be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to agreeing with the applicant of the re-siting of the 1.8m high glazed screen for this to follow the line set by the left-hand edge of the existing dormer; that the resident at 32 Thorp Arch Park be re-notified and given opportunity to comment with Ward Members being content that the neighbour had been adequately informed of the proposed revision. If agreement was not reached with the applicant on the

 re-siting agreed by Panel, then the application be reported back to Panel for determination

and Councillor John Procter to be consulted on the revised plan and if agreement was not reached on this re-siting then a further report be submitted to Panel for determination of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for one storage shed and one new storage shed to front

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  For the avoidance of doubt, Councillor Procter stated that he lived in the area, with his home being included on the site plan, but that the application site was not visible from his house due to high screening

  Officers presented the report which sought retrospective planning permission for a storage shed and planning permission for a new shed to the front of Bingley Cottage 41 Church Lane Bardsey which was situated in the  Conservation Area

  Members were informed of an error on the location plan which had been circulated with the papers as this did not include the location of the subject property

  Although some concerns had been expressed about the shed and its location, particularly due to its proximity to trees, the Council’s Tree Officer had considered this and was of the view that it was acceptable.  The applicant had also indicated his willingness to put in additional planting including ivy to the back of the shed

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant and an objector who attended the meeting

  The Panel discussed the application and raised the following matters:

·  the possibility of locating the shed elsewhere within the site.  Members were advised that the shed could become permitted development if sited at the rear of the property

·  that the applicant and neighbour should engage in further discussions with Officers to try to reach an amicable resolution

RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred for

negotiations to seek a revised siting of the sheds within the cartilage (which may mean that the shed constitutes permitted development) and if agreement cannot be reached that the application be reported back to Panel with suggested reasons for refusal based on adverse impact on the Conservation Area

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for detached single storey outbuilding to rear

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  Officers presented the report which sought retrospective permission for alterations to a previously approved structure for a garage at Fylingdales Crabtree Hill Collingham, which had been subdivided internally to provide a garage and some ancillary accommodation

  Receipt of a further letter of representation was reported.  If minded to approve the application an amendment to condition no 3 was proposed relating to the use and occupation of the accommodation to limit it to family members of the occupants of Fylindales only

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, subject to an amendment to condition no 3 to read ‘ the use of the outbuilding shall remain ancillary to the dwelling within  Class C3(A) use and shall be occupied by family members of the occupants of Fylingdales, Crabtree Hill, Collingham’

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for retention of temporary detached single storey teaching unit with classrooms, offices, mess room and meeting room with car parking to community training base (approved under 07/04858/LA)

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought the retention of a temporary detached, single storey teaching unit with ancillary accommodation and parking at the Construction Training School Brooklands Avenue LS14

  Members were informed that the site was the former Foxwood School and was located in an area of Protected Playing Pitches as set out in the Development Plan, however Sport England had not objected to the proposals

  As the EASEL project was taking longer to progress due to the economic downturn, an extension of time was being sought for the teaching facilities provided on site and a further 5 year temporary planning permission was being recommended

  Members discussed the proposals and the position on the EASEL development with the Panel’s Lead Officer agreeing to contact the EASEL team and provide Councillor Lyons with an update on the scheme

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use and alterations of house in multiple occupation to 3 flats including rear dormer and car parking to rear

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for a change of use and alterations of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to 3 flats with car parking at 182 Harehills Avenue LS8, which was currently vacant and in a poor state of repair

  A plan showing the housing types in the immediate area around the subject property was displayed which in the opinion of Officers demonstrated the difficulty of resisting the application on the grounds of negative cumulative impact

  Panel discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the location of the bin stores for the 3 flats

·  concerns at the conversion of the property, particularly due to the existing population density of the area

·  whether planning policies existed to resist the loss of family homes to individual units

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to approve the

application be not accepted and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out reasons for refusal of the application based upon the Panel’s concerns relating to the increased density and adverse impact on the character of the area and creating sustainable communities.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for single storey extensions to school

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for 2 single storey extensions to form classrooms and cafeteria area at Brodetsky Primary School Wentworth Avenue LS17

  Members were informed that the proposals would enable greater before and after school use and increased community use at the site

  A typing error in paragraph 6.3 of the report was corrected for Members’ information

  If minded to approve the application it was requested that conditions nos 7, 8 and 9 relating to the submission of contaminated land reports be deleted and replaced by a single condition to cover this matter

  The Panel heard representation from the Headteacher of the school and an objector who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the application and commented on car parking; consultation with local residents and possible noise nuisance

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and the deletion of conditions 7, 8 and 9 to be replaced with a single condition to cover the eventuality of unexpected contamination being found during construction and that reports and remediation details to be submitted at this stage, if necessary

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for two storey block of 6 one bedroom flats, associated parking and access

(report attached)

  (Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Grahame withdrew from the meeting)

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for a two storey block of six, one bedroom flats with parking and access at Commercial Street Morley, together with a Conservation Area application for the demolition of an existing single storey building

  The Panel was informed that the development would provide supported living for people who required some level of daily or weekly assistance

  The design of the building had regard to the adjacent historic buildings of this part of Morley Conservation Area and the applicant had indicated that traditional materials, in this case stone and slate, would be used

  In terms of parking, it was not envisaged that the residents would use cars for a variety of reasons and that the proximity to good public transport links and facilities had been a factor when considering the location of such a housing scheme

  The adjacent Unity Hall did have disabled access over the site and there was no intention to remove this, with an additional condition being recommended to cover this, if Panel was minded to approve the application

  The Panel heard representation from the applicant’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the application and the offer put forward on behalf of Unity Hall that the applicant could use some of the land owned by Unity Hall to provide joint usage of an increased number of car parking spaces.  A request was made to retain the decorative flagstones in this area

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the specified conditions and subject to further discussions concerning parking arrangements with Unity Hall and the retention of flagstones

  (Following consideration of this item, Councillor Grahame resumed his seat in the meeting)

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on matters relating to an application for extension of time period for planning permission 07/03820/FU

(report attached)

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing financial information concerning the viability of a residential scheme at Park Mills Morley

  The report was designated as exempt under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and was considered in private

  Members were informed that the application was for an extension of time and that the applicant had submitted a financial viability assessment to indicate that the scheme would not be viable if the previously agreed affordable housing contribution was to remain. In respect of greenspace some contribution was being offered

  The applicant’s financial submission had been assessed by a Council Land Surveyor who concurred with the applicant

  RESOLVED -  To note the report

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on matters relating to an application for the extension of time period for planning permission 07/03491/FU

(report attached)

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing financial information concerning the viability of a residential scheme at South Queen Street Mill Morley

  The report was designated as exempt under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and was considered in private

  Members were informed that the application was for an extension of time and that the applicant had submitted a financial viability assessment to indicate that the scheme would not be viable if the previously agreed affordable housing contribution was to remain

  The applicant’s financial submission had been assessed by a Council Land Surveyor who concurred with the applicant

  Members discussed the financial assessments which had been submitted on this and the previous application, with the following comments being made:

·  that the policy requiring affordable housing provision had taken much time to achieve and should not be set aside

·  that during the height of the property boom developers had provided the minimum amount of planning contributions necessary but that in the current climate many now sought a reduction or deletion of these contributions

·  that the need for affordable housing was now even greater

·  concern that approving these schemes could prejudice other applications

The Panel’s Lead Officer stated that the two applications before

 Members would see the re-use of two historic mill buildings which were in a poor state, with one of them being located in the Conservation Area.  This set of circumstances would not exist in every case and the LPA did have a history of restricting reductions in planning obligations on brownfield sites where developers had paid too much for a site at the peak of the market

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

Further to minute 90 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for extension of time period for planning permission 07/03820/FU change of use of mill into 33 flats

A further report relating to this application which is exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3) is included at agenda item 26

(report attached)

  Further to minute 90 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 and to minute 117 above, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking approval for the extension of the time period for application 07/03820/FU – for a residential development at Park Mills South Street Morley LS27

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a legal agreement within 3 months from the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligations:

1  The provision of off-site Greenspace in the form of a commuted sum

2  ‘Recession proofing’ clauses in respect of affordable housing and enhanced greenspace contributions should the development not proceed

3  Reasonable endeavours to use local labour in development of the mills

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has not been

completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission the final determination of the application shall be delegated tot the Chief Planning Officer

(Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Lyons required it to be

recorded that he voted against the matter)

Further to minute 89 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the extension of time period for planning permission 07/03491/FU change of use carrying out alterations and extension of vacant mill building to form 42 flats and 2 houses with 2 garages and 18 car parking spaces

A further report relating to the application which is exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) is included at agenda item 27

(report attached)

  Further to minute 89 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th November 2010 and to minute 118 above, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking approval for an extension of the time period for application 07/03491/FUf for a residential development at South Queen Street Mill South Queen Street Morley LS27

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a legal agreement within 3 months from the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligations:

1  The provision of off-site Greenspace in the form of a commuted sum

2  ‘Recession proofing’ clauses in respect of affordable housing and enhanced greenspace contributions, should the development not proceed

3  Reasonable endeavours to use local workforce in the construction of the flats

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has not been

completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

(Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Lyons required it to be recorded that he voted against the matter)

Thursday 20^th January 2011 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 20^th January 2011 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds