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 on the Agenda.

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.

Councillor Wray informed the Panel that his Ward colleagues had made representations with regard to Agenda Item 7, 4 Belvedere Mount, Beeston, Leeds but he would be considering the item with an open mind and without pre-determination.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor J Heselwood.

Councillor P Gruen was in attendance as substitute.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 27 August 2020.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2020 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Councillor Campbell left the meeting due to loss of connection.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use from a residential property (C3) to a four bed house in multiple occupation (C4) at 4 Belvedere Mount, Beeston

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use from a residential property (C3) to a four bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4) at 4 Belvedere Mount, Beeston, Leeds.

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

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

·  The density of HMOs in the area had been assessed.  Comparisons of density with other areas in Leeds were displayed.

·  Internal and external photographs were displayed along with CGI images of proposed improvements.

·  There would be no residential accommodation within the basement area.  This would be used as a utility room.

·  Revisions to the internal layout were explained.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

In response to Members questions, the following was discussed:

·  There would be no change for the demand in parking in accordance with guidelines.

·  The application was felt to meet sustainable development requirements in accordance with Policy H6.  The property was in a mixed community area and would not cause an imbalance to this.

·  Policy recognised that there was a need for a sufficient supply of HMOs.  On balance it was not felt that an additional HMO in this area would cause harm.

·  It was not demonstrated that there were any environmental benefits to the application but there was also no evidence that the application would cause harm to the environment.

·  It was recognised that there was a clear distinction between this area and others in the density of HMOs.  It was also acknowledged that the area was covered by an Article 4 directive due to the number of HMOs.  Each application for HMOs was considered on a case by case basis and it was felt there was no problem with HMOs in the area.

·  There had not been any representations against the application from local residents.  Ward Councillors had objected due to the need for more family housing.  Over 90% of housing in the area was family housing.  Based on evidence it was felt that the balance was for approval.

·  It was not felt that there was such a significant demand for family housing in this area that would be prejudiced by this application.

·  There was only one known case of enforcement action in the area with regard to unauthorised HMOs.

·  There would be the provision of 2 standard bins and there was sufficient space for off street storage.

·  There was not any evidence to suggest there was a problem with HMOs in the area.

·  Policy H6 was not designed to protect family housing but to ensure that the right balance and mix could be achieved.

Members were asked to comment on the application.  The following was raised:

·  There were thousands of private rented properties in the area and a significant amount of these were being discovered to be unauthorised HMOs.  The area was not designed for such a density of population and there were areas of deprivation.  There were also significant parking and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for single storey extension to the front at 37 Kirkwood Way, Cookridge, Leeds.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a single storey extension to the front at 37 Kirkwood Way, Cookridge Road, Leeds.

The application had been referred to Panel as the applicant was a Leeds City Councillor.

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

The following as highlighted:

·  The property fell within the residential part of Cookridge.

·  The property was a detached house principally brick built with a slate roof and was set well back from the street frontage.

·  The application had previously been approved in 2016 and this approval had now lapsed.  There had not been any alterations to the previously approved application

·  The application was recommended for approval.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per the officer recommendation.

The Chair thanked Tony Clegg, West Team Leader who was attending his last Panel meeting before retirement.  Members thanked Tony for his hard work and contribution to Panel meetings and wished him the best for the future.

Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 3 December 2020 at 1.30 p.m.