Agenda and minutes

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

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

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

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following 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, as follows:-

RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of information arising in discussions at minute 69 as it is deemed likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information so designated in terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (5) on the grounds that disclosure of the information to be discussed could undermine current and/or proposed legal proceedings

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 of business

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:

Minute 68 – applications for long stay commuter car parks

Councillor Jarosz – stated that her son attended Leeds College of Building which was very close to the Skinner Lane site (Application11/05310/FU)) although it was noted that this was not strictly a personal interest in terms of the Members Register of Interests

Councillor Castle – declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust in relation to the Midland Mills site (Application 11/04259/FU), as the Civic Trust had commented on the proposals

Additionally, Councillor G Latty stated that in 2010, he had written a letter arguing with the principle of closing the city centre car parks; however he would review the applications with an open mind and determine each on its own merits

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on the following applications for long stay city centre commuter car parks:

(Reports attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report on 16 applications relating to the provision of city centre commuter car parking. The report also addressed the purpose and status of the City Centre Commuter Car Parking Policy (CCCCP Policy) and how this had been applied as a material consideration in the assessment of each of the applications.

Members had regard to the CCCCP policy which set out the basis for granting consent to applications for a maximum of 3,200 temporary commuter car parking spaces within the city centre core and fringe car parking areas for a period of 5 years. The submitted applications totalled 4568 spaces. Members were therefore aware of the assessment criteria and the competing nature of the 16 applications before them

The Head of Planning Services outlined the procedure to be adopted for this Panel meeting and stated that of the 4568 spaces proposed in the applications, 3391 were currently in use. The applications had been assessed on their merits in line with the Policy. It was noted that the cap of 3200 spaces had been reached taking the comments of the Highways Authority regarding highways safety and the capacity of the strategic highway network into account.

The Legal Adviser reminded Members that a comparative assessment of each of the applications was required and therefore it was essential that all Members remained in the meeting throughout in order to have any part in the necessary voting

The Area Planning Manager, Central Area Team, set out the relevant polices within the Unitary Development Plan and presented the background to the introduction of the CCCCP strategy. Executive Board had agreed the CCCCP Policy and the criteria by which to assess any applications as stated in Appendix 1. A team including officers from the Highways Authority and Leeds City Council (landscaping, highways and planning) had carried out a comparative assessment of each application and had ranked them in order of those that best met the preference criteria as shown in Appendix 3. This showed that the 11 highest scoring applications were recommended for approval, the remaining 5 lowest scoring applications were recommended for refusal. It was noted that the total recommended for approval would still exceed the cap – but by a marginal number (18 spaces)

Members paused at this point to consider the policy framework for the decision making and discussed the following:

-  Any one of the 16 applications would be considered acceptable providing they were within the cap of 3200 as the Highways Authority did not consider any proposal to have an adverse impact on the strategic highway network.

-  The difference between the strategic highways network (Highways Agency) and the input of the local highways authority (LCC) regarding local highway network issues.

-  The assessment criteria and the weighting given to some criteria. Some Members commented that public safety (in terms of lighting/CCTV/natural surveillance) and biodiversity were of equal importance to the highways assessment

-  Noted that Executive Board could not have predicted that all applications received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

  RESOLVED –

a)  To note the legal advice provided and subsequent discussions and

b)  To re-open the meeting to the general public and consider the applications in public

The Panel reconvened the meeting in public. Members confirmed that the applications would be determined as submitted, having regard to the Policy and the 3200 cap as set by Executive Board.

Members considered first whether they agreed with the assessment of those applications recommended for refusal. There was general support for the assessment of the Ingram Row site to be re-considered at this point in the proceedings. Members were aware that by permitting this application in addition to the others recommended for approval the cap of 3200 would be exceeded by 243 car parking spaces; and therefore one scheme mooted for approval may need to be reconsidered.

The Panel received legal advice on the assessment process undertaken by officers for each application and the need for Members to make a final decision on the comparative merits of each of the 16 applications taking into account the officer assessments and all material considerations.

Members noted the support for the reconsideration of the Ingram Row application and considered the fairest approach would be to take a view of the assessments of those applications which had scored slightly higher. Members supported the assessments of Ingram Street and Midland Mills but noted the comments made regarding Globe Road (C) which had a low score against the “safety” criteria. The Panel discussed the merits of this scheme in detail, after which general support remained for this application

For clarity the Head of Planning Services suggested that the number of spaces per site should be included within the conditions for each permission granted to prevent block parking and over use of the site

The Panel then moved to consider the recommendations for each application in turn and

RESOLVED – That the contents of the report and its appendices be noted and be taken into account during consideration of the individual applications and

a) That the following applications be determined as follows:

1. 11/02640/FU Wellington Place (North) – deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for final approval subject to the expiry of the advertisement period
2. 10/04358/FU Wellington Place (South) - deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for final approval subject to the expiry of the advertisement period
3. 11/05031/FU Former Carlsberg Tetley, Hunslet Lane – approved subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and the conditions set out in the submitted report and as updated at Panel

  b) That the following applications be approved as per the   recommendations and conditions set out in the submitted reports and subject to any necessary amendments to conditions identified by officers at the Panel meeting:

1. 11/05281/FU City One', Sweet Street/Meadow Road
2. 10/04375/FU Whitehall Riverside
3. 11/05310/FU Skinner Lane
4. 11/05218/FU Globe Road (A)
5. 11/05216/FU Globe Road (E)
6. 11/05215/FU Globe Road (C)
7. 11/04259/FU Midland Mills, Water Lane
8. 11/05238/FU Ingram Street

c) 11/05239/FU Ingram Row – that the officer recommendation to refuse the application be not agreed. Members noted the officer recommendation had been made having regard to the policy and cap on spaces however felt that the proposals for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To note the dates of future meetings as:

Thursday 12^th April 2012, Thursday 10^th May 2012 and Thursday 7^th June 2012 all at 1.30 pm

RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 12^th April 2012 at 1.30 pm