Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially Councillor McNiven and Councillor Pryke who were new members on Plans Panel East.  Members and Officers were then asked to introduce themselves for the benefit of the public who were in attendance

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 although the Panel was in receipt of the following information to be considered at the meeting:

  Application 10/04641/FU – Highfield House Morley – photographs and a site plan circulated by the applicant (minute 13 refers)

  Application 11/01241/FU – 482 Roundhay Road LS8 – Photographs and further written representations circulated by the applicant (minute 14 refers)

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 purposes of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8-12 of the Members Code of Conduct:

  Councillor Lyons declared personal interests in the following applications through being a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the applications:

  Applications 11/01678/FU and 11/01679/AD – 95a Queen Street Morley LS27 (minute 17 refers)

  Application 08/06739/FU – Leeds United FC Ltd – Elland Road LS11 (minute 20 refers)

  Application 11/01244/OT – Land on Gelderd Road and Ring Road Beeston (minute 23 refers)

  Councillor Gruen declared a personal interest in application 11/01244/OT – Land at Cartmell Drive LS15 through being the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and Housing as the applicant was Leeds City Council who was seeking approval for a residential development (minute 22 refers)

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Latty who was substituted for by Councillor Fox

In respect of applications 11/00735/FU and 11/01403/EXT – Wikefield Farm Harrogate Road Harewood, the Panel’s Lead Officer informed Members that the applicant had withdrawn application 11/00735/FU and that the remaining extension of time application had attracted a large number of objections.  Officers were requesting this application be deferred for one cycle to enable the Officer’s report to be amended in light of this withdrawal and for the objections to be properly considered .  As the timescale for determination of the application was 15^th July 2011, there would not be the opportunity for the applicant to appeal against non-determination if consideration of the application was deferred at this meeting

  RESOLVED -  That the report be withdrawn and that a revised report be brought to the meeting scheduled for 14^th July 2011

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011

(minutes attached)

  The Head of Planning Services referred to minute 189 of the meeting held on 19^th May 2011, in respect of Application 11/00915/FU – The Grove Headingley and asked Members to confirm the minute accurately recorded the Panel’s discussions as concerns had been raised in respect of the proposed distance the access road and building was to be from the properties on Cherry Grove.  Whilst accepting the minute was accurate, the view was expressed that if concerns could be met by realigning this 1.5 metres away, this could be accepted

  RESOLVED – To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011

  With reference to minute 186 – Application 10/05711/FU – 11 Old Park Road Gledhow LS8 which Panel resolved to defer for one cycle, the Head of Planning Services stated that with the potential for pending enforcement action, it was considered that further clarification was needed especially in relation to the boundary hedge treatment.  A report on the current situation had been presented to the Chair and it had been made clear to the applicant’s agent that delays would not be accepted, with a further report being submitted to Panel as soon as possible

The Head of Planning Services verbally updated Members on a decision issued by the Secretary of State on 25^th May 2011 relating to a large scale residential development on a Greenfield site at Grimes Dyke LS15 

The appeal had been allowed and an award of costs had been made against the Council.  The Inspector concluded that the application would not conflict with policy and that the Council had not provided evidence to support its refusal relating to housing supply and impact on urban renewal.  A report on the matter would be considered at Executive Board in June to discuss the implications of this decision, with a further report being presented to the next Joint Plans Panel meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  That the decision ran counter to the localism agenda and was a poor decision

·  The implications of such decisions for the whole city, with concerns that greater landbanking could take place

·  That the decision undermined the Council’s approach of trying to promote brownfield development and trying to protect the Greenfield sites and all of the work undertaken with communities on these sites

·  The Inspector’s view that the city had only 2.5 years land supply despite the LPA having approved the equivalent of 5 years worth of supply of housing and concerns that in view of this decision, the Council was unlikely ever to achieve a 5 year land supply

·  The difficult position Panel Members had been placed in when considering applications in view of this decision

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an appeal against refusal of an application for the erection of two semi-detached residential dwellings, 2 single detached garages, accesses and associated landscaping

(report attached)

Plans were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out an appeal decision following refusal of planning permission for two semi-detached residential dwellings, 2 single detached garages and associated landscaping at the garden curtilage of numbers 1-3 Church View Thorner LS14

It was the decision of the Inspector to allow the appeal subject to a range of conditions

Officers stated they were disappointed with the decision and that there were differing views from Inspectors on the development of garden sites.  This was echoed by Panel Members

RESOLVED -  To note the appeal decision

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an appeal against non-determination of a planning application for the erection of a detached dwelling and the approval of details relating to access on land to the front

(report attached)

Plans were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out an appeal decision relating to non-determination of a planning application for the erection of a detached dwelling and approval of details relating to access on land to the front of 16a Church Lane Bardsey LS17

The Panel was informed that the plan attached to the report was incorrect but that the correct plan was displayed at the meeting

It was the decision of the Inspector to dismiss the appeal on the issue of sustainability although a partial award of costs was made against the Council as the Inspector considered there had been a failure by the Council to substantiate its concerns relating to access/highways and drainage/flooding issues

Members and Officers commented on the decision, particularly the view that the site for a single dwelling in an established village within reasonable proximity of a bus stop was not considered to be sustainable

The possibility of this being discussed at a future Joint Plans Panel meeting was raised

RESOLVED -  To note the appeal decision

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of detached 5 bedroom house with attached double garage to equestrian/kennels/cattery

(report attached)

Plans were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out an appeal decision against non-determination considered by Plans Panel East at its meeting on 20^th January 2011 (minute 128 refers) for the redevelopment of the existing equestrian/kennels/cattery buildings to form a single replacement dwelling on Cleavesty Lane East Keswick LS17

It was the decision of the Inspector to dismiss the appeal although a partial award of costs was made against the Council through the failure to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate its reason for refusal relating to design and by doing so, had acted unreasonably

Concerns were raised by Panel Members at the Inspector’s decision to award costs in this case; the inconsistency of views between Inspectors; a disregard of local views, especially Village Design Statements and the imposition of standards of design

It was suggested that a letter be sent to the Planning Inspectorate outlining Members’ concerns on recent appeal decisions, with the Panel’s Lead Officer being asked to draft a letter for clearance by the Chair and Councillor Gruen

RESOLVED -  To note the appeal decision

Further to minute 192 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May where Panel received a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of detached 6 bedroom dwelling house, laying out of driveway to front and landscaping including creation of sunken garden and pond, for Members’ determination

(report attached)

Further to minute 192 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th

May 2011 where Panel considered a position statement on an application for a single detached dwelling at Cragg Hall Farm Wetherby, Members considered a formal application

Plans, including an amended site plan which had been circulated to

Members, photographs, drawings and a model were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report which sought permission for a single

dwelling located centrally within the site and the demolition of all the existing buildings on the site

Clarification had been sought on the intended boundary treatments

to demarcate the boundary between residential curtilage and agricultural land, with the applicant’s agent being willing to accept a condition regarding detailing.  A further condition relating to external lighting was also recommended

In relation to Members’ requests for details of the very special

circumstances which applied in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, these were outlined as being:

·  the replacement of 2 dwellings with one dwelling

·  the siting of this and its impact on the open character and visual amenities of the Green Belt

·  issues of nature conservation and biodiversity

·  that the proposal represented a better form of development for this site than others that might be judged to comply with Green Belt planning policy

Reference was made to the recent appeal decision on the

Cleavesty Centre, with Officers stating that the decision was a finely balanced one

  In view of the previous, detailed discussions by Panel on the application, the Chair suggested that new Panel Members might wish to consider not participating in determining this application

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the handling of the application with concerns at the timescale; the lack of consultation with Ward Members and local groups and the differing approach taken to this application compared to the Cleavesty Centre particularly the range of possible uses for the dwelling contained in the submitted report if this application for a single dwelling house was not approved

·  that issues raised in a previous Inspector’s report had not been included in the Officer’s report

·  the need for Ward Members to be involved in discussions about the boundary treatment and planting

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report together with the following additional conditions:

• Demolition of all existing buildings to take place prior to commencement of building work
• No external lighting to be erected anywhere within the site until details have been submitted and approved in writing by the LPA.  External lighting shall be installed in accordance with these approved details and retained as such thereafter
• Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no boundary treatments, gates or retaining walls shall be erected onsite until all details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.  Such details shall include position, materials, height, colour etc.  All boundary treatments shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to first occupation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a detached 5 bedroom house with detached double garage, new vehicular access, associated hard standing and 2m high pillars; boundary wall and iron railings

(report attached)

Plans, photographs and drawings 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 approval for a detached dwelling with new access, hardstanding and boundary treatments on land adjacent to Highfield House Brunswick Street Morley LS27 which was situated in the Morley Conservation Area

  The Design/Conservation Officer had recently highlighted areas of external design which could improve the relationship of the property to Highfield House relating to fenestration; the removal of dormer windows to the front elevation and less emphasis to the size of the front projecting central gable.  In view of this, Officers requested that the approval of the application be deferred and delegated to allow for design alterations

  In respect of the Contaminated Land consultation, no objections had been received

  Officers reported the receipt of further comments from the occupants of Highfield House which were outlined as were the comments from Morley Town Council

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

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  Land stability and that this issue should be fully consulted upon with Ward Members

·  Highways issues

·  The need for conditions covering reasonable hours of work including limited work on Saturday and none on Sunday being drawn up and Highfield House to have adequate access at all times during construction

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer to allow for detailed design issues and subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, additional conditions relating to the submission of a construction management plan and access to Highfield House to be maintained during the construction process and following consultation with Ward Members on the issue of the stability of the land

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of part basement of existing ground floor shop to form 1 one bedroom studio flat

(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

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for the change of use of part basement of existing shop to form a single bedroom studio flat at 482 Roundhay Road LS8 which was sited within the Oakwood District Centre and the Roundhay Conservation Area.  Works to the building had been carried out, making the application retrospective

A previous scheme had been refused by Officers due to the lack of daylight for the dwelling, with this decision being upheld by an Inspector

Although revisions had been made to the scheme, Officers remained unhappy and were recommending the application be refused

The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting

RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed flat would fail to provide an appropriate level of accommodation and amenity for future occupiers in terms of outlook and natural light, contrary to policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) and the guidance in SPG 6: Development of Self-contained flats and SPG 13: Neighbourhoods for Living

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for detached double garage 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 for retrospective approval of a

detached double garage rear of 104 Leeds Road Oulton 

Members were informed that a permitted development inquiry had

been made with the applicant being advised planning permission was not needed in this case.  A query regarding this was made and it was found that the information given had been incorrect; that the application did not constitute permitted development and the applicant was invited to submit a planning application

An issue of an illegal fence had been raised, and whilst the fence was

shown on the photographs, this had been removed when Members visited the site.  In response to a question about this, Members were informed that a fence above 2 metres required planning permission and if in the future the fence was reinstated at that height, planning permission would be required

RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the condition

set out in the submitted report and an additional condition to restrict the garage to the ancillary use of the occupation of the house

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

(report attached)

Further to minute 109 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th December 2010 where Panel was minded to refuse an application for a single side and rear extension at 51 Pondfields Drive Kippax LS25, the Panel considered a further application as the previous one had been withdrawn by the applicant

Officers presented the amended application and explained that the side

and rear extensions could be built under permitted development, but that the wrap-around element of the scheme linking the side and rear extensions fell outside the scope of this.  The scheme had been set back from the main front elevation of the house in order to try and overcome the streetscene concerns

Details of bin storage was provided in response to a question by the

Panel

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 of shop from Class A1 to betting office Class A2, including alterations, new shop front and two air condenser units to roof

(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

Officers presented the report which sought a change of use of part of

Morley Market to a licensed betting office.  The site was located within the designated S2 Morley Town Centre and also within Morley Town Centre Conservation Area

In terms of policy SF7 which regulated the amount of units in non-retail

use, the proposals were acceptable and would result in 27.3% non retail uses being created, with a figure of 30% being  acceptable

The proposals would result in the loss of a side entrance to Morley

Market although a new entrance on the corner would be provided

Members were informed there were no highways issues and the

proposed use was acceptable in a town centre

The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent and Town

Councillor Sanders who was objecting to the proposals

The Panel discussed the following matters:

·  the relocation of several indoor market stalls to a less prominent location in order accommodate the proposals and the impact of this for the market and its traders

·  the possible detrimental impact of such a use on the character and identity of the market

The Head of Planning Services stated that if Panel was minded to refuse the application, the need to set out the harm to the market weighed against the benefits should be considered

RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to approve

the applications 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 applications based on the concerns raised by Panel in respect of the impact on the character and vitality of the market and the proposals being harmful to the retail function of Morley Town Centre

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on extension of time applications 07/05804/LI for Listed Building application for demolition, restoration and extension to church for form residential development and associated planning permission 07/05805/FU

(report attached)

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report which sought an extension of time for previously approved applications at St Mary’s Church and Presbytery Church Road Richmond Hill LS9.  The applications had been approved in principle by Panel at its meeting on 14^th February 2008 (minute 221 refers)

As the applications were for extension of time, limited consultation was required and in line with Government guidance, the approach to applications of this nature was to focus on issues which had changed since the original permission was granted. 

In respect of national planning policy and guidance the

changes which had taken place since permission had been granted were not considered to impact on the acceptability of granting the current applications

Regarding local policy, the introduction of the Street Design Guide was considered to be of relevance, with Highways Officers being re-consulted on the proposals, but with no concerns being raised subject to the original conditions being attached

Officers requested an amendment to condition No 7 on the full application to reflect the parking space of 1 Richmond Hill Close which was against the boundary of the site, through the provision of a speed table when entering the site

The Panel heard representations from two objectors who shared

 the speaking time allowed

Members commented on the following matters:

·  highways issues

·  the impact of the proposals on residential amenity

·  the remit of such applications with the Panel’s Legal Officer reiterating the advice that the principle of development could not be revisited unless there had been significant changes

·  whether it would be possible to secure a revision to the access point if this was agreed to by the applicant

Members considered how to proceed

The Head of Planning Services suggested that consideration of the applications could be deferred for one cycle to enable a meeting to take place between Officers and the applicant to ascertain the intentions for the site, particularly in view of the continual deterioration of both of these Listed Buildings

  RESOLVED -  That consideration of the applications be deferred for one cycle to enable negotiations with the applicant on the issues outlined above

  (During consideration of this matter, Councillor Fox left the meeting)

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of shop to tea room (Class A3)

(report attached)

Plans were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a change of use of shop to a tea room at Commercial Street Rothwell which was sited within the Rothwell Town Centre and the Rothwell Conservation Area.  Although such an application would normally have been dealt with under delegated powers, the application had been brought to panel as the applicant was a close relative of an Elected Member who would also be a partner in the business

  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 setting out the current position on an application for the extension to existing east stand to include hotel, arcade/concourse area, conference and banqueting facilities, car parking restaurants, retail, Class A2 nightclub and offices to football stadium

(report attached)

Prior to consideration of the following matter, Councillor Gruen and Councillor Procter left the meeting

Further to minute 238 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 9^th April 2009 where Panel agreed in principle an application for the development of a range of shopping and leisure uses at Leeds United’s Elland Road stadium, Members considered a further report seeking comments on a proposed  amendment to the scheme to include a museum

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report and stated that the proposed museum which would be included in the first phase of the development would be an additional tourist attraction for the city.  No additional floorspace would be required as the museum would be accommodated within the existing footprint for the site

With reference to the amount of match day car parking provision, the Chair, as Ward Member for the area, stated that the reduced level of car parking had not been agreed with Ward Members and that the last masterplan for the site which had been consulted upon had shown that there was no support for the loss of car parking spaces within the locality

Further discussions took place relating to:

• the impact of inadequate car parking, particularly through increased gate numbers if the team won promotion to the Premiership
• the lack of response about a possible railway station at the ground
• local employment; the need to secure this and difficulties which had arisen with the EASEL scheme which had not been able to define ‘local’ as being within a specific area; rather it had been defined as ‘being within the Leeds Boundary’

Concerns continued to be raised at the loss of match day car parking

RESOLVED -  To note the comments on the proposed variation to plans

previously agreed

(Following consideration of this matter Councillor Grahame left the meeting)

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for variation of condition 3 (restriction of goods for sale) of application 07/05843/FU – to allow sale of golf goods from 942 square metres floor space

(report attached)

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report which related to the variation of a

condition attached to application 07/050843/FU which restricted the goods which could be sold at City South Retail Park, formerly Tulip Retail Park, Hunslet LS10.  Members were informed that no occupier had been put forward for the application which was seen as being an attempt to secure a new operator on the site

Three appeals relating to previous refused applications at the retail park had been lodged with these being scheduled to be dealt with in early August 2011 by Public Inquiry

Golfing goods were general comparison goods, rather than bulky goods,

and as such could be sold from town centre locations.  National guidance contained in PPS4 seeks to direct main town centre uses, which includes most forms of retail, into town centres unless it can be demonstrated otherwise through a sequential test.  In this case, Officers were of the view that this had not been adequately demonstrated by the applicant who had only assessed three sites.  Furthermore, Officers could not agree with the reasons given by the applicant in rejecting some city centre sites, particularly due to the specific space requirements for golfing goods

It was therefore the view of Officers that the application should be refused

with a possible reason for the refusal being included for Members’ consideration

The Panel heard representations from the Retail Park’s planning agent

who attended the meeting

Members discussed the following matters:

·  the current trading situation of the Retail Park, with nearly half of the units being empty and the need to help the retail park

·  the impact on the city centre and surrounding S2 centres such as Dewsbury Road, Morley and Rothwell of opening up the variety of goods which could be sold on the site, if approval was given

·  that the sale of golfing goods would have no impact on neighbouring retail centres

·  that the site would be suitable for the sale of golfing goods, some of which were bulky and there was a requirement for easy access by car

A proposal to accept the Officer’s recommendation was made,

however further discussions continued

With the Chair’s permission, the Head of Planning Services asked

factual information from the Retail Park’s agent who indicated that if the application was granted his company would work with the Council to find a way to deal with one of the appeals currently lodged

The Head of Planning Services stressed the importance for Members

to consider whether by approving the application they were prepared to give away part of the principle that the LPA were going to Public Inquiry on and that this could be seen as either the thin end of the wedge or helping out a failing retail centre

Members considered how to proceed.  A proposal to grant planning permission was made and seconded and in doing so Panel accepted the position Officers had been faced with on this application

RESOLVED – That the Officer’s recommendation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development

(report attached)

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report which sought outline consent with all

matters reserved for approximately 34 residential units on land at Cartmell Drive LS15, which was largely a cleared site, formerly housing two tower blocks, but also included an area of green space, although there were proposals to mitigate this loss through the re-provision of an area of greenspace on site

Affordable housing would be provided on site with this being at the

level which existed at the time the Reserved Matters application was submitted.  In respect of timescales, Members were informed that the applicant was seeking a longer outline consent period of 5 years for reserved matters approval and 4 years for the implementation of development.  The justification for this request was based around not having a delivery partner for the development and the need to market the site openly which would take time

Concerns were raised at the timescales being sought, which amount to 9 years

RESOLVED -  To approve the application subject to the conditions set

out in the submitted report and for the time limits to be 3 years for the outline consent and 2 years for submission of reserved matters

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of an outline application for development of non food retail units, 2 car showrooms, ancillary food kiosk with associated access roads and landscaping

(report attached)

Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at

the meeting

Members considered a position statement on proposals for a

commercial development on a strategic site in South Leeds

Officers presented the report and stated that the site which was now

cleared had previously supported B8 uses, so the principle of development was considered to be acceptable.  Further information was required on the size of the kiosk unit and when the application was brought for determination details on the restrictions of the goods for sale would be provided

Some concerns existed about the amount of landscaping being

proposed, with some of it being off-site.  Design issues also existed with Officers of the view that a building of equal quality to the adjacent Porsche building was required

Members commented on the following matters:

·  The need for a high profile building with good quality landscaping on this site and that anything less would not attract people to the development

·  The possibility of the curved design of the Porsche building being echoed in the design for this scheme

·  The need for adequate car parking to support the mix of uses even if this meant less units on the site

·  Highways issues, that the site was close to a busy junction which regularly led to traffic building up on the Ring Road and that the highways proposals would need to take this into account

·  the need for pedestrian safety issues and access points to be addressed as concerns were raised about rat-running through the site which must be prevented

·  The fact that the site was within a flood risk zone and the need to address the Environment Agency’s comments in respect of flooding

·  The Coal Authority’s comments and who would carry out further investigations.  Members were informed that it would be for the developer to arrange for such work to be undertaken

RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position of an application for part demolition, change of use and extensions to industrial building to form residential development with shop, car parking and landscaping

(report attached)

Further to minute 92 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 25^th

November 2010 where Panel considered a position statement on the proposals, a further report was submitted for Members’ consideration

Plans and graphics were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report and informed Members that a recent

fire in February 2011 had destroyed the original 5 storey brick tannery building but that the applicant was seeking to replace this with a comparable building, together with 4 additional buildings and 10 three storey townhouses

The opportunity to create a route through between the two main

buildings would be taken as well as improvements to the landscaping

Members provided the following responses to the specific points to

be addressed in the report:

That the Panel accepted the applicant’s approach to the

redevelopment of the site following the loss of the tannery building

The Panel was satisfied with the suitability of the replacement

building in terms of its footprint, scale design and use of external materials

The proposed mix of residential units was acceptable

The overall number of car parking spaces being proposed appeared

to be acceptable so long as it was unallocated

That planning obligations would be required, including affordable

housing, a travel plan and contributions towards greenspace and public transport infrastructure

RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made

Thursday 14^th July 2011 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 14^th July 2011 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall Leeds