Agenda and minutes

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 a personal interest on the following application as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, Metro having previously commented on the application:

Application No.10/00279/FU – Sandbeck Lane, Wetherby (Minutes No. 36 refers)

Application No.23/35/01/OT – Nepshaw Lane, Gildersome, Leeds 27 – Position Statement (Minutes No. 43 refers)

Application No. 23/60/03/OT – Geldard Road, Gildersome, Leeds 27 – Position Statement (Minutes No. 44 refers)

Councillor Finnigan declared a personal interest on Application No. 10/04127/FU – 41 King Street, Morley, Leeds 27 as a member of Morley Town Council, and having previously commented on the application (Minute No. 42 refers)

Councillor J Procter declared a personal interest on Application No. 11/01122/FU – 9 Southlands Crescent, Moortown, Leeds 17, the applicant being known to Councillor Procter (Minute No. 35 refers)

Councillor R Grahame declared a personal interest on Application No. 11/01019/EXT & 11/01021/EXT – St Mary’s Church and Presbytery, Church Road, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9 having previously commented on the proposal (Minute No. 41 refers)

(A further declaration of interest was made during the meeting, minute 38 refers)

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th June 2011

(minutes attached)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16^th June 2011 were accepted as a true and correct record.

Further to minute 8 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th June 2011 where Panel received a verbal update on a recent appeal decision, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out further information on an appeal relating to an outline application to layout access road and erect approximately 500 dwellings with ancillary retail and community facilities

(report attached)

With reference to Minute No. 8 of the meeting held on 16^th June 2011 when Members received a verbal update on the appeal decision. The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report providing more details of the outline application to layout access road and erect approximately 500 dwellings with ancillary retail and community facilities to land at Grimes Dyke, York Road, Leeds 14.

It was the decision of the Inspector that the appeal be allowed and a partial award of cost be made against the City Council

RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted

Further to minute 129 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 20^th January 2011 where Panel resolved to refuse permission for two storage sheds to the front of Bingley Cottage 41 Church Lane Bardsey LS17, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the appeal decision

(report attached)

With reference to Minute No. 129 of the meeting held on 20^th January 2011 when Members resolved to refuse permission for two storage sheds to the front of Bingley Cottage 41 Church Lane Bardsey, Leeds17.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report indicating the applicants had appealed the decision. The Inspector dismissed the appeal concluding that the sheds would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bardsey Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policy No.19 of the UPDR

RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for extension of time period for planning application 30/196/05/FU for change of use of land and buildings from agriculture to equestrian purposes, formation of arena and cross-country course

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out details of an application to extend the time period for planning application 30/196/05/FU for change of use of land and buildings from agriculture to equestrian purposes, formation of arena and cross-country course to land at Wikefield Farm, Harrogate Road, Harewood, Leeds17

It was reported that 1,619 letters of objection had been received with a further 20 having been handed to officers prior to the commencement of the meeting.

The Panel heard representations from the tenant of the property who was objecting to the proposal and also from the land owners agent

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• The granting of the application may influence the serving of a Quit Notice
• Had there been a material change in the circumstances in the personal circumstances of the tenant since the previous appeal decision?
• Are the personal circumstances of the tenant a material planning consideration?
• What weight could be attached to the tenants personal circumstances in the determination of the application

It was the view of Members that Counsels opinion be sought

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to seek Counsels opinion of the following:

• Had there been a material change in the circumstances in the personal circumstances of the tenant since the previous appeal decision?
• Are the personal circumstances of the tenant a material planning consideration?
• What weight could be attached to the tenants personal circumstances in the determination of the application

Further to minute 186 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011 where Panel agreed to defer determination of the application for one cycle, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer an a retrospective application for alterations to existing unlawful residential annexe to form 3 bedroom residential annexe

(report attached)

This item was withdrawn at the commencement of the meeting

Further to minute 189 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011 where Panel agreed to defer and delegate approval of an application for a three storey residential care home with basement car parking, laundry, kitchen and stores, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further to minute 189 of the meeting held on 19^th May 2011 when Members agreed to defer and delegate approval of an application for a three storey residential care home with basement car parking, laundry, kitchen and stores at Grove Lane, Headingley, Leeds 6.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report indicating that satisfactory negotiations had taken place with the applicant to address a number of issues and the application had been revised accordingly

The Panel heard representations from a local resident who was objecting to the proposal and also from the applicant

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• Had appropriate consultation involving local resident been undertaken?
• Accepted that negotiation had taken place with the applicant resulting in a number of revisions to the scheme
• The existing site was an eyesore and the proposed development would improve the appearance of the area

Members were informed that letters had been sent out to 100 local households inviting them to attend a public meeting of which 10 people did attend 

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover obligations towards: public transport contribution, bus stop contribution, travel plan and monitoring fee

(ii)  That in the event of the Section 106 been not completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for two replacement dormer windows to front, replacement dormer window to rear, first floor side extension and reduction in height of existing two storey front 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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out details of an  application for two replacement dormer windows to front, replacement dormer window to rear, first floor side extension and reduction in height of existing two storey front extension at 61 High Ash Avenue, Alwoodley, Leeds 17.

The Panel heard representations from a local resident who was objecting to the proposal.

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• The front dormers windows were too large
• Previous alterations were unauthorised
• The existing development was not in keeping with the street scene
• The front gable was too large

Officers were of the opinion that the rear dormer was acceptable

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for further negotiations with the applicant to achieve a substantial reduction in the size of the front dormers and a reduction in the size of the front projecting gable

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a detached studio 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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out details of an  application for the erection of a detached studio to rear of 9 Southlands Crescent, Moortown, Leeds 17

The Panel heard representations from a local ward Councillor who was objecting to the proposal and also from the applicant.

Officers reported the receipt of a further letter of objection, 6 having been received in total

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• The proposal was permitted development with some minor changes
• Scale and massing overwhelming, four times larger than existing garage
• Was it necessary to include a roof light?
• Auxiliary use to main house

In providing clarification, the applicant said that the property would be used as an artists studio and the roof light would provide “north light”

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report with the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the use to be restricted to purposes ancillary to the dwellinghouse.

Further to minute 191 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011 where Panel received a position statement on the application, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application to lay out access and erect business and industrial park development, with offices, research and development units, light industrial units and warehouses with car parking and attenuation pond

(report attached)

 Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further to Minute No. 191 of the meeting held on 19^th May 2011 when Members received a position statement on the application.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out details of an  outline application to lay out access and erect business and industrial park development, with offices, research and development units, light industrial units and warehouses with car parking and attenuation pond on land off Sandbeck Lane, Wetherby, Leeds 22

Officers reported that poor accessibility was a matter of significant weight , it was considered the other benefits, along with the allocation of the site and employment generation, outweighed this issue. The proposal complied with relevant planning policies and was considered acceptable

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• Possibly located on a bat transit route?
• Northern part of the site was located within a flood zone
• Office buildings as shown on the illustrative details were considered not acceptable

Officers reported that any development would be in accordance with the flood risk assessment

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report, with the inclusion of additional conditions to cover the submission of a bat survey, to require the submission of the Reserved Matters within 3 years of grant of permission and the inclusion of an additional direction stating that the appearance of the office buildings as shown on the illustrative details were not acceptable and prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover obligations towards: public transport contribution, bus stop contribution, travel plan/ monitoring fee, contribution towards Wetherby parking strategy (in consultation with ward Members) and a clause to secure the training and employment of local people

(ii)  That in the event of the Section 106 not been completed or substantial progress made towards its Agreement within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the application would be referred back to Panel for determination

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application to erect four 5 bedroom detached houses

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out details of an  outline application to erect four, 5 bedroom detached houses at land near Crank Cottage, Station Road, Morley, Leeds 27

Officers reported that the principle of residential development was considered to be acceptable in light of the nature of the use of the land and it’s layout that it was located within a sustainable location.

RESOLVED –

i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief

Planning Officer for approval, subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the provision of a contribution towards drainage improvements at Cotton Mill Beck

ii)  That in the event of the Section 106 been not completed within 3

months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of shop (A1 use) to hot food take away (A5 use) with new shopfront and flue

(report attached)

(Councillor Procter declared personal and prejudicial interests through his friendship with the owner of a property in close to proximity to the subject site)

(Councillor Procter withdrew from the meeting at this point)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out details of an  application which sought the change of use of shop (A1 use) to hot food take away (A5 use) with new shop front and flue at 348 Dewsbury Road, Hunslet, Leeds 11.

Officers reported that the site was located within a parade of shops and proposes a change of use of a vacant A1 unit. The resultant number of A1 to non A1 uses as well as the cumulative effects of hot food take-away on residential amenity had been considered and deemed acceptable subject to conditions to protect residential amenity.

The Panel heard representations from a local ward Councillor who was objecting to the proposal.

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• Saturation of takeaways within the wider area
• Concerns about the possible increase in noise, litter and anti- social behaviour if approved
• Had there been a change in circumstances in the parade since the previous appeal decision?
• The number of vacant units and the length of time they had been  vacant?
• The impact of the vacant units on the vitality of the shopping parade?
• Late night use a particular concern for residents

RESOLVED –

(i)  That consideration of the application be deferred  for further information on:

·  The number of takeaways within the wider area?

·  How many units were currently vacant and for how long?

·  Had there been a change in circumstances in the parade since the previous appeal decision?

(ii)  That the application be brought back to Panel for final determination

  (Councillor Procter resumed his seat in the meeting)

Further to minute 21 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th June 2011 where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse an application for the variation of condition 3 (restriction of goods for sale) of application 07/05843/FU to allow sale of golf goods from 942 sqm of floor space, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out possible conditions to be attached to a permission, for Members’ determination

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further to Minute No. 21 of the meeting held on 16^th June 2011 when Members resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this  application.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out details of the application which sought to vary condition 3 (restriction of goods for sale) of application 07/05843/FU to allow sale of golf goods from 942 sqm of floor space at Units 2-11 City South Retail Park, Tulip Street, Hunslet, Leeds 10. Proposed conditions for approval were included within the submitted report

In the discussion that ensued Members were of the view that “products directly related to gardening” should be included in the range of goods to be sold.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report with an amendment to Condition No.3 to include within the range of goods to be sold; “products directly related to gardening”

Further to minute 17 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th June 2011 where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve an application for change of use of shop (use class A1) to betting office (use class A2), including alterations, new shopfront and two air condenser units to roof and two illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated projecting sign, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out possible reasons for refusal of the application, for Members’ determination

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further to Minute No. 17 of the meeting held on 16^th June 2011 when Members resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report setting out details of an application for change of use of shop (use class A1) to betting office (use class A2), including alterations, new shop front and two air condenser units to roof and two illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated projecting sign at 95a Queen Street, Morley, Leeds 27. Suggested reasons for refusal were included within the submitted report

The contents of a letter received from the applicant was conveyed to Members

In the discussion that ensued Members were of the view that the proposal and it’s implications were not welcomed by the Market Traders

RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the reasons outlined  in paragraph 1.7 of the submitted report

Further to minute 18 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 16^th June 2011 where Panel deferred consideration of extension of time applications for part demolition, restoration and extension to church to form residential accommodation, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.

Further to Minute No. 18 of the meeting held on 16^th June 2011 when Members deferred consideration to allow further discussions on the possibility of the vehicle entrance position being reviewed.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report which sought an  extension of time applications for part demolition, restoration and extension to church to form residential accommodation at St Mary’s Church & Presbytery, Church Road, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• Access to the nearby green space would be beneficial
• The creation of an access point by opening part of the church wall was not supported

RESOLVED –

(i)  To approve in principle both extension of time applications for Listed Building Consent and it’s related planning application and to defer and refer to the Department of Communities and Local Government as a demolition application of a Grade II* Listed Building and a departure from the Statutory Development Plan

(ii)  That in the event of the Secretary of the Secretary of State not calling in either application, authority  be delegated  to the Chief Planning Officer to approve subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for dormer window and new detached shed 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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out details of an unauthorised rear dormer window to 41 King Street, Morley, Leeds 27.

Officers put forward a number of options  and requested Members views on what future action should be followed

In the discussion that ensued Members commented on the following issues:

• White cladding was not appropriate in a Conservation Area
• The design and position on the roof space was not in keeping with the general area

RESOLVED –

(i)  To approve option 2 – The window frame colour to be changed to match the side of the dormer

(ii)  That an Enforcement Notice be served on the property owner specifying the required actions to make the dormer acceptable

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an outline application to lay out access and erect business park

(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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the current position on an outline application to lay out access and erect business park development at Nepshaw Lane, Gildersome, Morley, Leeds, Leeds 27

Officers reported that at this stage the application was in outline and  Members views were requested

In the discussion that ensued Members made the following observations:

(a)    Travel Plan Framework and site accessibility – Members considered that the site was poorly served by public transport and that there were no bus stops within reasonable walking distance of most of the site. Lack of service on the A62 and A650 was a concern. The accessibility issues would encourage the use of cars. Members   were of the opinion that more work needed to be undertaken to make the site sustainable including the mitigation fund.

(b)    Where primary office development was proposed Members were of the view that the applicant would need to undertake a sequential test to aid the consideration of this element.

(c)    The proposed developments would generate significant traffic including private cars and HGV’s and the mitigation measures did not go far enough.  Further information was required before a view could be reached as to whether the off site highway works were sufficient.  An updated Traffic Assessment would need to be submitted.

(d)    Difficulties for pedestrians on the A62 and 650

(e)    Members expressed major concerns about the flood risk, especially for residents at Old Close. It was considered that the developer would need to do more to ease Members concerns:

(i)  There should be no increase in flood risk downstream.

(ii)  It was the opinion of Members that the £300k contribution was not sufficient to address flooding issues.

(f)  In light of the comments made at (a) and (c) above Members, were not satisfied with the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

(g)    An appropriate landscaping scheme was required for the site boundaries and within the site itself, including within parking areas. Further information requires submitting in respect of a scheme to secure pedestrian safety and access along Nepshaw Lane which should be gated (beyond the access to the Moorfields site).

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the position statement be noted

(ii)  That the views expressed by Members, above, be used to aid progression of the application

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an outline application to erect business, industrial, storage and distribution development

(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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the current position on an outline application to layout access and erect business park development, including class B1, B1c, class B2, class D1, class B8 at Asquith Avenue/ A62, Gildersome, Leeds 27

Officers reported that the proposed development would fulfil an allocation policy within the adopted UDP and would bring employment uses into Morley and Gildersome, allowing the area to sustain economic growth.

Officers reported that at this stage the application was in outline and  Members views were requested

In the discussion that ensued Members made the following observations:

(a)  Travel Plan Framework and site accessibility – Members considered that the site was poorly served by public transport and that there were no bus stops within reasonable walking distance of most of the site. Lack of service on the A62 and A650 was a concern. The accessibility issues would encourage the use of cars. Members were of the opinion that more work needed to be undertaken to make the site sustainable including the mitigation fund.

(b)  Where primary office development was proposed Members were of the view that the applicant would need to undertake a sequential test to aid the consideration of this element.

(c)  The proposed developments would generate significant traffic including private cars and HGV’s and the mitigation measures did not go far enough. Further information was required before a view could be reached as to whether the off site highway works were sufficient. An updated Traffic Assessment   would need to be submitted.

(d)    Difficulties for pedestrians on the A62 and 650

(e)    Members expressed major concerns about the flood risk, especially for residents at Old Close. It was considered that the developer would need to do more to ease Members concerns: 

(i)  There should be no increase in flood risk downstream.

(ii)  It was the opinion of members that the £300k contribution was not sufficient to address flooding issues.

(f)    In light of the comments made at (a) and (c) above Members, were not satisfied with the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

(g)    An appropriate landscaping scheme was required for the site boundaries and within the site itself, including within parking areas. Further information requires submitting in respect of a scheme to secure pedestrian safety and access along Nepshaw Lane which should be gated (beyond the access to the Moorfields site).

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the position statement be noted

(ii)  That the views expressed by Members, above, be used to aid progression of the application

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an outline application to lay out access road and erect distribution centre

(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.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the current position on an outline application to layout access and erect distribution centre at Treefields Industrial Estate, off Geldard Road, Gildersome , Leeds 27

Officers reported that the proposed development would fulfil an allocation policy within the adopted UDP and would bring employment uses into Morley and Gildersome, allowing the area to sustain economic growth.

Officers reported that at this stage the application was in outline and  Members views were requested

In the discussion that ensued Members made the following observations:

(a)    Travel Plan Framework and site accessibility – Members considered that the site was poorly served by public transport and that there were no bus stops within reasonable walking distance of most of the site.  Lack of service on the A62 and A650 was a concern. The accessibility issues would encourage the use of cars. Members were of the opinion that more work needed to be undertaken to make the site sustainable including the mitigation fund.

(b)    Where primary office development was proposed Members were of the view that the applicant would need to undertake a sequential test to aid the consideration of this element.

(c)    The proposed developments would generate significant traffic including private cars and HGV’s and the mitigation measures did not go far enough. Further information was required before a view could be reached as to whether the off site highway works were sufficient. An updated Traffic Assessment would need to be submitted.

(d)    Difficulties for pedestrians on the A62 and 650

(e)    Members expressed major concerns about the flood risk, especially for residents at Old Close. It was considered that the developer would need to do more to ease Members concerns: 

(i)  There should be no increase in flood risk downstream.

(ii)  It was the opinion of members that the £300k contribution was not sufficient to address flooding issues.

(f)    In light of the comments made at (a) and (c) above Members, were not satisfied with the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

(g)    An appropriate landscaping scheme was required for the site boundaries and within the site itself, including within parking   areas. Further information requires submitting in respect of a scheme to secure pedestrian safety and access along Nepshaw Lane which should be gated (beyond the access to the Moorfields site).

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the position statement be noted

(ii)  That the views expressed by Members, above, be used to aid progression of the application

Thursday 11^th August 2011 at 1.30pm

RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 11^th August 2011 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.