Agenda and minutes

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

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 report referred to in minute 177 under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds it contains 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 be likely to prejudice the applicant’s current negotiations.  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, copies of which had been circulated before the day of the meeting:

  Application 11/02402/FU – Erection of 86 houses at Unit 12 Temple Point Austhorpe LS15 – a report providing financial information (minute 177 refers)

  Application 11/02402/FU – Erection of 86 houses at Unit 12 Temple Point Austhorpe LS15 – a revised report clarifying at paragraph 1.0 the reasons for seeking to exclude the press and public for part of the discussions on this application (minute 177 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 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct:

  Energy Recovery Facility – site of former Skelton Grange Power Station:

  Councillor Lyons declared a personal interest as a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had been consulted on the proposals (minute 178 refers)

  Councillor Pryke declared a personal interest as a member of the Aire Valley Leeds Board where issues relating to the proposals had been discussed (minute 178 refers)

  Councillors Gruen, Lyons and Pryke declared personal interests through being members of the East Leeds Regeneration Panel where issues relating to the proposals had been discussed (minute 178 refers)

  Application 11/02402/FU – Unit 12 Temple Point Austhorpe LS15 – Councillor Grahame declared personal and prejudicial interests through having previously expressed support for the proposals (minute 177 refers)

  Application 11/02402/FU – Unit 12 Temple Point Austhorpe LS15 – Councillor Lyons declared a personal interest through being a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority as Metro had commented on the proposals (minute 177 refers)

To receive any apologies for absence.

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

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 26^th January 2012

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 26^th January 2012 be approved

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

(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 an extension to the existing property at 42 Henconner Lane LS7.  Members were informed that whilst the report was recommending refusal of the application on the grounds of impact on the amount and quality of private amenity space for the occupants of the dwelling, the applicant had submitted a revised plan.  This would see the removal of the existing garage on the site and restoration of the area of land to lawned garden area.  As such, Officers considered that with suitable conditions, the application could be approved

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate determination of the application to Officers for approval, subject to appropriate conditions being attached to the approval

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for use of land for siting of mobile home with associated works and retention of chicken shed, 2 single stables and dog pen

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which related to a retrospective application for use of land for siting mobile homes with associated works and retention of existing structures at The Stables, Ninevah Lane Allerton Bywater WF10, which was sited in the Green Belt

  Members were informed that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whilst the applicant had submitted personal reasons in support of the application, Officers were of view that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and as such were recommending the application be refused, with suggested reasons being included in the submitted report

  Officers also stated that the Environment Agency had objected to the application and as the applicant had not adequately demonstrated that foul drainage could be satisfactorily provided at the site, a further reason for refusal relating to this was recommended

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

1  The site lies within an area defined as Green Belt and the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed mobile homes for residential occupation and associated infrastructure constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt in light of the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), the draft NPPF and Policy N33 of the Unitary Development Plan and would undermine the purpose and function of the Green Belt.   The applicant has also failed to demonstrate very special circumstances which could justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.   It therefore, is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies N33 and H16 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the guidance contained within PPG2

2  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed mobile homes for residential occupation and associated infrastructure would, due to their size, siting and combined visual effect, have a harmful impact on the openness of this Green Belt location, whilst having a harmful impact on the visual amenity and rural character of this edge of village locality due to the design and facing materials used.  It is therefore, considered that the proposal is contrary to the national planning policy guidance in PPG2 and Policies GP5, H16 and N13 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006)

3  The Local Planning Authority considers that the use of the land for the purposes of stationing caravans for human habitation intensifies the use of an access route that is unsuitable by reason of its narrow width, a tight bend with poor visibility and poor surfacing of the track between the bend and the site.  The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policies T2 and GP5 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), national advice in PPG13 and ‘Manual for Streets’ and the Council’s advice contained within the ‘Street Design Guide’

4  The Local Planning Authority considers that in the absence of sufficient information, including percolation tests, the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that foul drainage can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer for change of use of and sub-division of barn and workshop to form 3 industrial starter units (B1 use)

(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 a change of use and alterations of an existing barn and workshop to create 3 industrial starter units with a B1 use on land rear of 5 Bradford Road Gildersome Morley LS27, which was situated in the Green Belt

  A number of minor amendments to the report relating to the correct application number; conditions 5 and 19 which had been duplicated and the red line boundary which should be shown as extended to take in the necessary access works were highlighted

  Members were informed that this use was considered to be appropriate in the Green Belt; that no substantial alterations were being made to the workshop and that the resident closest to the site had not objected, although many objections had been received from residents on East View

  If minded to approve the application, a further condition was proposed relating to access works to be carried out prior to occupation

  The Panel discussed the application with some concerns being raised about the proposal, particularly the possible uses and the ability of Officers to adequately enforce planning conditions

  RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, the deletion of condition 19 which was duplicated and a further condition relating to access works to be carried out prior to occupation

  (Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Finnigan required it to be recorded that he voted against this matter)

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

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which related to an application for a detached double garage to the rear of the Old Village Hall, Eccup LS16 which was situated in the Green Belt and the Harewood Special Landscape Area

  Members were informed that the current application was a reduction on a previously submitted scheme which had been withdrawn by the applicant

  The most recent planning history of the site was provided, with Members being informed that the former commercial car repair garage had been tastefully converted to a residential dwelling.   When permission was granted for the residential dwelling an increase of 40% on the footprint of the property was agreed; the proposed double garage would represent an overall increase of 70%, which was outside the current policy and therefore Officers were recommending refusal of the application with suggested reasons being contained in the submitted report

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

  Members considered the application; its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the possibility of undertaking a site visit

  The Panel considered how to proceed

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

1  The site lies within an area defined as Green Belt and the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed garage constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it represents a disproportionate addition to the host property(when considered with the newly converted and extended dwelling as constructed) which in light of the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, the draft NPPF, policy N33 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and policy HDG3 of the Draft Householder Design Guide (September 2011) would undermine the purposes and function of the Green Belt.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances which could justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to policy N33 of the Leeds UDP, HDG3 of the Draft Householder Design Guide and guidance contained within PPG2

2  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed detached garage by virtue of its size and siting will have a harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area, whilst also having a harmful impact on the visual amenity and rural character of the area.   It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to policy guidance in PPG2, policies N33 and N37 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and policy HDG3 of the Draft Householder Design Guide

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use from B1 (office) to D1 (day nursery)

(report attached)

  Plans, including a location plan, 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 permission for a change of use from offices to a day nursery at Thornfield Court Bruntcliffe Road Morley LS27

  Concerns had been raised in respect of on-site and off-site highways matters.  The widening of the access point to accommodate two-way passing and the provision of a refuge, with an illuminated bollard, for pedestrians, was considered by Highways to be acceptable

  Officers reported a further representation from Councillor Dawson, who indicated his support for the proposals subject to the highways issues having been satisfactorily resolved

  If minded to approve the application, a further condition relating to the retention of trees was suggested

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the possibility of queues of traffic forming outside the premises and how this would be managed.  The Panel’s Highways Officer stated that a TRO – paid for by the applicant -  would be implemented alongside the traffic management works

·  security and safety for children and young families, in view of the close proximity of the A60

·  that a condition be included requiring best endeavours to recruit locally for the employment the scheme would create

·  that the scheme represented a good use for the building, subject to the highways and safety concerns being addressed

The Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval of the application to the

Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report; including further conditions relating to the retention of trees on the site and a scheme of local employment, together with further discussion on securing the main entrance for the safety of children, with a condition being imposed on an agreed scheme

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use of restaurant (A3) to form restaurant and takeaway (A3/A5)

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Procter requested a site visit to consider the car parking arrangements

  RESOLVED -  That consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting to enable a site visit to take place on the morning of that meeting

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for two storey and single storey side, front and rear extension; bay window and canopy to front and enlarged area of hardstanding to front

(report attached)

  Plans, including shadow plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  The application had been brought to Panel as the applicant was a Senior Officer within City Development

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for extensions and an enlarged area of hardstanding at 30 Burnham Road Garforth LS25

  Officers were of the view that the proposals respected the character of the area and having checked the possibility of shadowing to neighbouring properties was satisfied that the shadowing which did occur affected the host property and the gap between that and the neighbouring property

  In response to a query from the Panel, Officers stated that the net increase was 70% - 80% at ground floor level and 40-% - 50% at upper floor level

  In terms of the shadowing plans which had been provided, Officers stated these were used in cases where shadowing was thought to be a particular concern

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

Further to minute 144 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5^th January 2012 where Panel deferred consideration of an application for a residential development comprising 88 houses, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  (Having previously declared personal and prejudicial interests, Councillor Grahame withdrew from the meeting)

  Further to minute 144 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 5^th January 2012, where Panel deferred determination of an application for a residential development comprising 88 houses at Temple Point Austhorpe LS15, the Panel considered a revised report

Plans, photographs, graphics, including a fly-through and precedent images were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report and informed Panel that the scheme had been revised and now comprised 86 houses

Details were provided on:

·  the design and materials

·  the noise mitigation measures provided

·  the discussions with Ward Members on the S106 contributions, with affordable housing and education contributions being the top priorities

  At this point, following exclusion of the press and public, the Panel considered the supplementary report which provided financial information in respect of the viability of the scheme.  Officers from the Asset Management Section of City Development who were in attendance, responded to questions from Members

  The Head of Planning Services reminded Members that the site was originally to be used for an office development and that the application for the residential scheme was made jointly by the landowner and developer and referred to the balance of national planning policy which was to encourage economic growth.  If approved, the scheme would provide some affordable housing although this would not be at the level of the current policy

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  the interim affordable housing policy and the discussion on this at Executive Board

·  concerns that a precedent could be set by agreeing to contributions which were so far short of what should be provided

·  the list of figures provided and the items they related to

·  the usefulness of having detailed financial information, even if it was necessary to consider this in private

The Panel considered the information provided and sought advice from

the Panel’s Legal representative who stated that viability was a material planning consideration and that there was a balance to be struck between enabling the development to commence and the benefits flowing from that and the provision of the usual S106 contributions

Having noted the information and the comments now made, the

press and public resumed their seats in the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the level of S106 contributions being provided, with there being disappointment that these were so much – i.e. £1m less  than required by policy - even the lower level of affordable housing as set out in the interim policy

·  the need for affordable housing and that whilst the Council was seeking to be helpful and supportive in the current economic situation by reducing the level of affordable housing, that what the developer was proposing in this case did not meet the requirements

As the Panel was minded to refuse the application, in line with the

protocol for speaking at Plans Panels, the Chair invited a representative of the applicant to address the Panel

  Members considered the information provided

  RESOLVED -  i  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an application for an energy recovery facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge

(report attached)

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) with associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge on the site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station, Stourton

  Prior to discussions on the proposal, Members queried the process which enabled consideration to be given to the scheme without objectors being able to put their views to the Panel.  Concerns were raised that the applicant, through the various discussions which had taken place at Panel, had been given a considerable amount of time on this scheme and that objectors should have the same time to address Panel.  The Chair pointed out that what was being considered was a position statement and that objectors would be given the opportunity to speak when the application was to be determined

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

  The proposal was for an ERF on the former Skelton Grange Power Station, operated by Biffa, which was capable of accepting 300,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste per annum and would create approximately 300 jobs in the construction phase and in the region of 40 jobs at the plant

  The site which was surrounded by six Wards was currently vacant following demolition of the cooling towers and comprised mainly concrete and aggregate.  The area around the site was made up of predominantly industrial land

 Officers presented the report and stated that most of the consultee comments had been received and that further input from Members was sought on several issues, with a series of questions being included in the report for Panel’s consideration

Members questioned Officers on a range of issues and received the following information:

·  the facility would produce 30MW of which 26MW (equivalent to 52,000 homes) would be exported to the National Grid; 4MW would power the plant itself

·  that economic factors largely determined the distance waste could be sourced from in order for it to be disposed of

·  that the design life of the facility was 25 years although it could be required for longer

·  the ERF had been designed taking into account the context of the surrounding industrial landscape and with simple curves and different materials when compared with the usual ‘boxed in shed’ design.  The Design Team and Civic Architect, John Thorp, had been involved in detailed design discussions 

·  that the height of the flue stacks would be 90m.  Even if the building was lowered into the ground – which was not feasible in this case due to groundwater issues – the flue height would not reduce as it would still need to be 90m above ground level

·  the purpose of the plant would be to take the commercial and industrial waste Biffa currently disposed of at landfill

·  that the plant would be capable of taking any kind of non-hazardous residual waste i.e. commercial and industrial or municipal or a combination – up to a capacity of 300,000 tonnes per  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

Thursday 22^nd March 2012 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 22^nd March 2012 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds