Agenda and minutes

South and West Plans Panel - Thursday, 23rd July, 2020 1.30 pm

Venue: Remote Meeting via :

Contact: Andy Booth, Governance Services 

No. Item


Appeals Against Refusal of Inspection of Documents

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.




Exempt Information - Possible Exclusion of the Press and Public

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:-


  No exempt items or information have been identified on the agenda



There was no exempt information.




Late Items

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 late items.




Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

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.


Councillor Campbell advised the Panel that he had previously objected to Agenda Item 9, Application 19/06632/FU – Land at CT Cars Garage adjacent to Highfield Stables, Carlton Lane, Guiseley, LS20 9PE and would be taking no part in the discussion or voting on this application.




Apologies for Absence


Apologies ofr absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Barry Anderson.  Councillor Ryan Stephenson was in attendance as substitute.




Minutes- 4 June 2020 pdf icon PDF 346 KB

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2020.



RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2020 be confirmed as a correct record.




Application 18/04343/RM - LAND TO THE EAST OF OTLEY ROAD, ADEL, LEEDS, LS16 8FE pdf icon PDF 4 MB

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a reserved matters application for residential development (use class C3) for up to 100 dwellings and land reserved for primary school with construction of vehicular access from Otley Road to the north west and Ash Road to the south, areas of open space, landscaping, ecology treatments and associated works.



The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters application for a residential development at Church Lane, Adel.


The application had been considered at the previous meeting of the Panel when it had been deferred to return for consideration focusing on the following matters, on which the applicant had been requested by Panel to provide further consideration of and / or information on:


·  A bespoke gate way type house.  That more reflects other older existing properties along the road.

·  Further detailing to the proposed properties and clearer detail to be shown on revised CGI’s

·  Prove that regardless of the mix of sustainability/energy efficiency methods all properties achieve the same overall standard.

·  Roofscape needs more detailing principally by employing chimneys particularly at key focal points.

·  4 Bed affordable homes need to be provided to ensure policy compliance.


There had also been a position statement on the application presented at the Panel meeting in September 2019 when Members had undertaken a site visit.


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


Members were informed of a late submission made with regard to trees on the site.  The submission requested that further consideration be given to the matter of trees as there was a group of trees to be removed which had not been proposed for removal at the outline stage.  Further explanation was given by the lead Planning Officer as to the status and category of the trees to be removed in response to the submission, but with the Chair reminding Members that the matter had returned to Panel for consideration to be given to the five matters noted.


Further information highlighted in relation to the application by the case Planning Officer included the following:


·  The layout of the scheme had not changed.  Land would still be reserved for the school and the pumping station would be sited at the northern boundary.

·  Images of the surrounding areas in Adel were displayed showing the different kinds of materials and features used in house design.  The site would have four separate character areas with materials and design that reflected the surrounding areas.  There would be areas that contained houses of red brick and render, an area with mixed brick and render and an area with reconstituted stone.

·  Details of the proposed property at the entrance to the site – this had been changed to red brick with render to match the nearby properties on Otley Road.

·  Images were shown to demonstrate the changes and improvements to the proposed streetscene since the initial application.

·  Policies EN1 and EN2 were not attached to the outline application and did not have to be complied with.  The proposals however did comply with these policies and went beyond the requirement.  The proposals in relation to EN1 would see a 23% reduction in carbon dioxide and this would be achieved by the addition of solar panels to 35 plots. The requirement for low carbon energy in the development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.


Application number 19/06632/FU – CT Cars Garage adjacent Highfield Stables, Carlton Lane, Guiseley, LS20 9PE pdf icon PDF 560 KB

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for Demolition of car storage facility and construction of a dwelling.



The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of a car storage facility and construction of a dwelling at CT Cars Garage adjacent to Highfield Stables, Carlton Lane, Guiseley, LS20 9PE.


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


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


·  The application was subject to an appeal for non-determination.

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor due to detrimental impact on the greenbelt.

·  Current buildings on the site were used as car storage and an office.

·  The proposed property would have a smaller footprint than the existing buildings.  It would be higher than the existing buildings but not significantly.  There would be an area for parking to the front.

·  This was a brownfield site within the greenbelt.  In-fill development was permitted provided there was no further impact caused than there was by the existing development.

·  The addition of a dwelling would not be non-compliant with regards to sustainability.

·  Members were asked whether they would have granted permission for this application.


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


·  Access to public transport – the nearest bus stop was nearly 2 kilometres away which was further away than guidance contained within the Core Strategy.  The distance to the nearest train station was also further than the guidance contained within the Core Strategy.

·  The site had a lawful use for commercial buildings, but this was now an application for a residential building that was proposed.  Comment on the previous lawful use was not appropriate, as each planning application must be considered in its own right.

·  Advice would be taken as to whether the cess pit would be adequate for a family dwelling.

·  The loss of an employment site was not a concern as it was not considered to be employment intensive.

·  There would be a decrease in the volume of the buildings on the site.  There would also be improvements with the loss of hard standing areas.

·  Members considered the proposals to be an improvement on the existing development.


Members were reminded that an appeal against non-determination of the application was to be held.  Members were therefore not in a position to (and not being asked to) approve the application but to give an indication as to whether they would have approved it if the application had come before them.  If Members indicated that they would have granted permission for the application, the Council would not then defend the appeal and would invite the applicant to consider resubmitting in future if they wished to do so.


A motion was made to move the officer recommendation detailed in the report, this was subsequently and seconded and it was:


RESOLVED – That Members would have been minded to approve the application, if it had been before them for determination, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.


It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.


Date and Time of Next Meeting

Thursday, 27 August 2020 at 1.30 p.m.



Thursday, 27 August 2020 at 1.30 p.m.