Agenda and minutes

The site visits were attended by Councillors Walshaw, Grahame, Jenkins, Nash, Ritchie, Wenham, Collins and Seary, Councillor Wilkinson attended the site visit to Westwood Way, Boston Spa (application 18/00344/FU)

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals against refusal of inspection of documents.

There were no exempt items.

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

There were no apologies for absence.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th June 2018 as a correct record.

RESOLVED - The minutes of the meeting held on 7^th June 2018 were approved as a correct record.

In relation to Minute 7 16/05185/FU – Appeal summary change of use of ground floor from doctors surgery/pharmacy to public bar, two storey rear extension; beer garden area; external alterations including new doors and windows, condenser and extraction equipment to roof; new fencing and parking to rear 39 Austhorpe Road, Crossgates, Leeds LS15 8BA. Cllr. Grahame raised concerns that matters became politicised during the meeting.

The Chair said that he would speak with the Legal Officer who attended the meeting on the 7^th June and send a response to Cllr. Grahame.

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the retrospective agricultural building for the storage of straw, fodder and feed and the housing of cattle and sheep at Swillington Organic Farm Coach Road, Wakefield Road, Swillington, Leeds LS26 8QA.

(Report attached)

Prior to the start of the item Cllr. Dobson requested that he be recused from this item. Cllr. Dobson had written in support of the application prior to him becoming a member of the Panel. However Cllr. Dobson stated for the record and for the Legal Officers attention that his role in this matter had been called into question by the objector. Cllr. Dobson said that he wanted to make it crystal clear for all parties, as an elected member he was entitled to make an opinion on a planning matter. He asked that this be recorded in case discussions strayed into a non-material area and he said that he would like the right of redress.

The Group Manager for North and East Plans Panel informed the Panel that the speakers against the application intended to play a recording of cattle noise that they had made of cattle on the adjacent farm. The advice provided by officers to the Panel was that in this particular instance it was fine for the objector to raise this as it was part of their case but in terms of the recording itself the Panel were advised that they could apply very little weight to the actual noise recording in their deliberations. It was noted that noise recordings for the purposes of planning matters and for them to carry any weight, noise recordings should be carried out by an independent source and were normally undertaken and monitored by the Council’s Environmental Health Team, using recognised equipment and using a standard methodology.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application which related to an existing barn which had been erected under agricultural permitted development rights in 2016, but from March 2017 had been used to house animals. The applicant now wished to use the barn for livestock and sought retrospective consent for this use of the structure.

The application had been referred to Panel as the structure lies close to a listed building and the applicant was leasing land from the St Aidan’s Trust, which is managed by Leeds City Council.

The application had been the subject of a site visit earlier in the day and plans, maps and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The Panel was advised that the building on site had been constructed under agricultural permitted development. The regulations under which the barn was constructed did not allow the housing of animals within 400 metres of residential dwellings. Full details of the permission was set out in the submitted report.

Members were advised that the development was within the green belt. It was explained that the barn was originally constructed under Part 6 of section 2 of the General Permitted Development Order, which allows the construction of agricultural buildings subject to certain conditions and criteria. It was noted that one of these was that the structure would not be used to house animals. The application presented was to extend the use to house animals as well as hay,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for an application raising ridge height, two storey and single storey extensions to front, side and rear with Juliet balcony to rear, dormer windows to front, alterations to boundary treatment at 50 Roper Avenue, Gledhow, Leeds LS8 1LG.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application to raise ridge height, two storey and single storey extensions to front, side and rear with Juliet balcony to rear, dormer windows to front, alterations to boundary treatment at 50 Roper Avenue, Gledhow Leeds LS8 1LG.

Members had visited the site earlier in the day and plans, maps and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The application proposed to convert the existing bungalow to form a two storey dwelling. The extensions would increase both the height and the width of the bungalow with some of the original building being retained. It was noted that other houses on the street were two storey dwellings.

Members were informed that the drive was to be made wider to allow parking for two cars.

It was noted that concerns had been raised by officers that the first floor windows in the rear elevation would overlook the dwelling beyond the rear boundary. After discussions with the applicant the depth of the first floor had been reduced so that a gap of 7.5m was retained from the rear boundary of the neighbouring dwelling. Members were informed that written representation had been received from the occupant of no. 55 Denton Avenue (located directly beyond the rear boundary of the site). The occupant of No. 55 had no concerns with the scheme.

It was noted that a request to view the development from the main objectors’ site had been received.

Mr Cook of 48 Roper Avenue attended the meeting, he said that he was speaking on behalf of 46 and 51 Roper Avenue and 57 Denton Avenue and 59 The Drive.

The following points were made by Mr Cook:

·  Proposal was too large for the site

·  The current dwelling was set back in the plot

·  The property should be 5m from the rear boundary

·  The proposed dwelling would be over dominant and overbearing

·  Extensions to the side boundaries meant that there was no access to the rear

·  Minimum distances were being disregarded

·  Front facing dormer was over prominent

·  No garden area for a property of this size

·  Would cause issues of parking on the street

Mr Swinney the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  The applicant had bought the property for its plot size and location in an area that was known to them and that they loved.

·  The property was prime for development and acceptable within the street scene

·  The applicant did not want to alienate new neighbours and had worked closely with planning officer making amendments to the original plans

·  Consultation had taken place with neighbours in relation to the side boundaries

·  The dwelling would be in line with other properties in the street

·  A neighbouring property had a large extension

In response to questions from the Members Mr Swinney said that the maintenance of the street scene in his view was subjective as there was an eclectic mix of houses on the street.

Mr Swinney  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the demolition of former care home and construction of new build extra care housing scheme comprising 44 apartments with associated communal facilities, parking and external amenity space at Westwood Way, Boston Spa, LS23 6DX.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the demolition of former care home and construction of new build extra care housing scheme comprising of 44 apartments with associated communal facilities, parking and external amenity space at Westwood Way, Boston Spa, LS23 6DX.

It was noted that there was a typo in the report at 10.9 referring to the shifting of the proposal by approximately 1.5 metres to the north. This should refer to the west.

2 additional comments received one highlighting the typo and also referred to the shift as a ‘measly’ 1.5 metres’

The second comment re-iterating the earlier objection and expressing that the shift of the proposal from the rear of 34 Church Street does not alleviate their concerns relating to loss of light and overbearing impact on their amenities.

Members had visited the site earlier in the day with plans, maps and photographs being shown throughout the presentation.

The Panel were informed of the following points:

·  The proposed footprint was ‘S’ shaped and longer than the building currently on that site

·  There were two storey properties around the site with open space surrounding

·  The proposal tried to minimise the height of the building by use of the roof space for additional rooms

·  Extra Care provision was lower than that of a standard C3 use building

·  The scheme was deemed to have a neutral impact on existing issues in the area including permissive parking with 3 schools and an allotment within the vicinity

·  Improvements had been made to the original design

·  The proposed living space meet and exceed minimum requirements

·  There was a need for this type of development within the area as set out in the Neighbourhood plan

·  There was no architectural merit in the current building on the site. However there was a boundary wall which needed protecting and was to be retained. This would be checked during and after construction.

Ms Douglas of 30 Church Street spoke to the Panel informing them of the following points:

·  The proximity and the height of the proposed development were a concern as it would reduce light levels to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties

·  32, 34 and 36 Church Street would have issues of showing if the development was to go ahead these properties had small rear gardens

·  Residents of the new building may also not be happy that people would be able to look into their property

·  The eastern side of the proposed building would be in shade

·  The size of the proposed building would set a precedent in the village

·  Ms Douglas was of the view that the rules had been changed to suit the plans as set out at 10.4 of the submitted report

·  Ms Douglas was not against the building of this type of property although, she did not think that it should be built at the detriment of those already living in Church Street

In response to a question with regard to the height of the hedges on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for a retrospective application for dwelling with detached outbuilding to rear at Wigton Court Wigton Lane Alwoodley.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out a retrospective application for dwelling with new detached outbuilding to rear at Wigton Court, Alwoodley, Leeds.

It was noted that this application had been heard at the meeting held in the previous municipal year on 22^nd March 2018, Minute 115 refers. At this meeting the resolution made was to defer and delegate approval subject to conditions set out at 1.2 of the submitted report.

It was also noted that the Panel has new Members and therefore a brief background and a reminder to the application was provided.

Following discussions with officers the applicant had decided that they wish to retain the scheme as originally presented to the Plans Panel and had requested that the ‘fall-back’ position regarding what could be achieved under Permitted Development rights for the original scheme be presented for comparison. A copy of the original report was appended to the submitted report.

Within the submitted report at paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 the advantages and disadvantages for both schemes were set out.

Members discussed the following points:

·  Permitted Development Rights

·  ‘Fall-back’ position

·  The metal super structure currently on site and if or how this would be affected

·  Noise and lighting from the proposed pool impacting on neighbours

·  Planting to the boundary

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission in accordance with officer recommendation.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillors Collins, Jenkins and Wenham required it to be recorded that they had abstained to vote on the decision to grant permission as resolved by the Panel. 

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the appeal summary for change of use of land to traveller pitch with detached utility block and associated works, retrospective application for laying out of hardstanding on land off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater, WF10 2HY.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided Members with the outcome of appeals by Mr T Doran against the decision of the City Council to refuse planning permission for the change of use of land to create a single travellers pitch and against the decision of the City Council to serve an enforcement notice to cease the use of the site and restore it to its former condition at land off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater, Leeds.

The appeal against the refusal of planning permission was allowed subject to conditions and the appeal against the serving of the enforcement notice was allowed in part on grounds (g) with modifications made to the notice.

A claim for the award of full costs against the Council was dismissed.

It was noted that future consideration should be given to personal circumstances and ethnicity of applicant on similar applications.

Members were informed that the Inspector had presented his report on a revised planning application. Members were amazed that the appeal had been granted when the application had been different to the one that they had considered.

RESOLVED – To note the report

The next meeting of North and East Plans Panel will be Thursday 9^th August 2018 at 1:30pm.

The next meeting of the North and East Plans Panel to be held on Thursday 9^th August 2018, at 1:30pm.