Agenda and minutes

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.

There was no exempt information.

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.

To receive and consider the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2020

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2020 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding reserved matters approval comprising 213 houses and apartments (Use Class C3), circa 2,400 square metres of commercial space, (Use Classes A1, and/or A2, and/or A3, and/or A4, and/or A5, and/or B1, and/or D1, and/or D2), amenity space and a new public square.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters application for 213 houses and apartments (Use Class C3), up to 2,076 square metres of commercial space (Use Classes A1, and/or A2, and/or A3, and/or A4, and/or A5, and/or B1, and/or D1, and/or D2), amenity space and a new public square for phase 2 of the Kirkstall Forge Development (Plots E and F), Kirsktall Forge, Abbey Road, Leeds.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  There had been two previously approved applications for these plots in 2017 and 2018. 

·  The commercial floor space provision was up to 2,076 square metres and not 2,400 metres as detailed in the report.

·  Access arrangements to and within the site.

·  The application site was set between the new internal road and the A65 with an established line of Woodland on the side of the A65.

·  Creation of the ‘stitch’ which would be a public realm and pedestrian access area.

·  The plots were situated above the already developed office block which was situated between the plots and the rail station.

·  The proposals were very similar to the previously approved applications.  Details of the previously approved applications were displayed and changes to the applications explained.  Main alterations included changes to the blocks E2 and E3 at either side of the pavilion building and the stitch.  Comparison images were displayed.

·  Car parking – reference was made to parking and travel arrangements.  It was proposed that there be a further condition to the application for a Travel Plan and Parking Strategy.

·  Floor layouts for the apartments were displayed.

·  Design detail to reflect the history of Kirkstall Forge.

·  CGI images of how the proposals would look when completed were displayed.

·  It was recommended that the application be approved with the additional condition for a travel plan.

In response to questions and comments, the following was discussed:

·  It had not been necessary to carry out any projected wind modelling on the proposals.

·  Recreation - there would be opportunities within the pocket park for children’s play area and opportunity for woodland and canal side walks.

·  Design of the apartments.  Apartments would be larger than the national space standard requirement.

·  There would be secure long term storage for 229 bicycles with an additional 31 short stay spaces.  Electric bicycle charging could be considered in the scheme.

·  Balconies to apartments would be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs and provide a suitable amenity space.

·  Car parking – residents would be aware of whether they had facility for parking before taking on their accommodation.  The rental market showed a lower demand for parking spaces.  Should there be additional demand for parking, the travel plan would include arrangements for additional provision.  The main aim was to promote and encourage sustainable travel.

·  With regard to Policy EN1, reference was made to the requirement to carry out a sustainability appraisal.  An energy statement had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Panel was given verbal updates on the following applications:

Application 17/06933/FU – Land at Sugar Hill Close, Oulton Drive, Wordsworth Drive, Oulton, Leeds, LS26 8EP

Following an appeal, the decision of the Inspector overturned the decision of the Panel to refuse the application.  A revised plan had been submitted by the appellant that addressed one of the reasons for refusal which related to garden size. Planning permission was subsequently granted and the appeal against the Council for costs was dismissed.  Eleven affordable units would be included within the development and a further eleven units would be made available to existing tenants of the site who had regulated assured tenancies.  A full report would be brought to a future meeting of the Plans Panel.

Application 18/00846/FU – Former site of Benyon Centre, Ring Road, Middleton, Leeds

The Panel granted permission in 2019 for a retail unit on the former site of the Benyon Centre.  This was against officer recommendation.  This decision was challenged by Asda by judicial review where the Panel decision was upheld and then subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal when the appeal was dismissed. 

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for eleven houses, one block of four bungalows with staff facilities and one block of thirteen flats with one staff accommodation unit.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application (position statement) for the development of eleven houses, one block of four bungalows with staff facilities and one block of thirteen houses with one staff accommodation unit at land off Cockshott Lane, Armley, Leeds.

Members were asked to note the content of the report on the proposal and to provide views in relation to questions posed to aid the progression of the application.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted:

·  The application was for a hybrid development with 11 private dwellings and a block of four bungalows with staff facilities and a block of thirteen flats with one staff accommodation unit.

·  There would be creation of a landscaped area in the existing greenspace on site.

·  The site previously housed a 1930s public house building which was demolished in 2004.  The site had since become overgrown with self-seeded vegetation.

·  Some of the trees on the site benefit from Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) that were made in 2004.

·  The site had been used for fly tipping and temporary fencing had been erected to prevent further unauthorised access.

·  There was a public right of way through the site.

·  Access arrangements to the site.

·  Details of the proposed site plan with new access road.

·  Details of house types and internal layouts. 

·  Details of the supported living accommodation proposed for the site.

·  It was expected that a registered social landlord with experience of providing supported living services would manage the supported living accommodation.

·  Positioning of protected trees within the site and how they would be affected by the proposals.  There would be continued discussion with the applicant with regards to this.

·  The greenspace had become overgrown and it was aimed to reinvigorate the area with access for all.  There would also be additional tree planting as part of the biodiversity gain.

·   There was an emerging energy statement which would address policy requirements and this made reference to materials to be used and energy usage.

In response to comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  It was requested that detailed information demonstrating that the proposals would meet Policies EN1 and EN2 be submitted along with the application.

·  Public rights of way across the site – there were established routes across the site though now partly overgrown and blocked off. These would be resurfaced and reintroduced as part of the proposals.

·  Not all trees on the site were covered by TPOs.  Some of the older trees were covered by the TPOs and it was believed that two of these had been lost before the applicant took control of the site.  There were good quality trees to be retained on the south and west boundaries to the site.  It was difficult to gauge how many protected trees would be lost due to the overgrowth on the site.  Further discussion with regard to trees included the different categories of the protected trees; which trees would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 1.30 p.m.