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 interests in accordance with Leeds City Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’.

There were no declarations.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Campbell and D Ragan.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 16 December 2021.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meting held on 16 December 2021 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute No 68 – Applications 20/01307/LI & 20/01306/FU – Micklefield House, New Road Side, Rawdon

To include the following:

·  The three parking bays at the rear of the building , closest to the library, and outside the red line boundary were not part of the development and it should remain clear that these remain public.

It was reported that there was an error in the amount of time allotted for speakers who addressed the Panel with objections to the application for Micklefield House.  There had been concerns that this should have been reflected in the minutes.  It was advised that the minutes reflected the debate and the resolution of the Panel but were not intended to give a verbatim account of the discussion.  Procedural issues such as timing of speakers were not usually recorded in the minutes, but it was felt that the error in the timings should be recorded.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion and extension of Belmont House to create 11 residential apartments; demolition of Round House and Coach House to be replaced by 7 and 6 residential apartments and other ancillary uses.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the conversion and extension of Belmont House to create 11 residential apartments; demolition of Round House and Coach House to be replaced by 7 and 6 residential apartments and other ancillary uses.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

·  There would be 24 residential units in total.  There was a slight amendment to the description of the application as the conversion of Belmont House would be for 10 apartments and 1 town house.

·  The site fell within the Headingley Conservation area.

·  There had been previous approval for the three buildings to be used for residential purposes.

·  The single storey extension on Belmont House would be demolished and replaced with a three storey extension.

·  Differences in levels across the site.

·  There would be four trees removed from the site and replaced at a ratio of 3:1.  Three of these trees were to be removed for the development and one because it was in a dangerous condition.

·  Neighbourhoods for Living guidance was met with regard to distances to existing buildings.

·  The extension on the rear of Belmont House would be made of stone to match the existing building.

·  The replacement building for the Coach House would be one storey higher.

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

·  The site required 15% affordable housing which equated 4 units.  There would only be 1 unit following the applicant’s request for Vacant Building Credit.

·  There would be an 11% biodiversity net gain following the development.

·  It was considered that the level of parking with the addition of residential permits was acceptable.

·  The scheme was compliant with policies EN1 and EN2.

·  The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement as outlined in the report.

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  He was supported by a local Ward Councillor.  The following was highlighted:

·  Main objections focussed on the three storey extension to the rear of Belmont House as this was too high and too close to existing properties would lead to a loss of privacy for local residents.

·  There had not been any communication with local residents at the design stage and the developers had not viewed the site from the western and southern side of the boundaries.

·  There had been objections from all Ward Councillors.

·  There was no opposition to a residential scheme and would like to see a reduction of the three storey extension to two storeys.  There was other space on the site for additional units.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  The mix of modern and traditional architecture was acceptable.  The position of the extension was not suitable.

o  It was disappointing that there was only one affordable unit.  Headingley needed affordable housing and the use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of land (Paddock and Woodland) to outdoor pet recreation and exercise facility and erection of fencing

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change ofThe report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of land (paddock and woodland) to an outdoor pet recreation and exercise facility and erection of fencing.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor.

·  There was a linear access point to the site from Carr Road.

·  To site was formerly used as a paddock area.

·  There was a private drive to the rear of the site that provided access to residential properties.

·  The change of use was to provide an exercise area for pets.

·  The site fell within the Calverley Conservation Area.

·  The site would be made available via a booking service.

·  There would only be minimal physical alterations.

·  There would be car parking for up to three vehicles.

·  There would be post and rail fencing to enclose the paddock area and fencing towards the woodland area.

·  The fencing would be set in from the nearest residential properties by two metres with additional planting in place.  The distance would be 5 metres from Clara Drive.

·  The site was within the greenbelt.

·  There would be no access from Clara Drive.

·  The walls at the access to the site would need to be lowered to improve visibility.

·  There were woodland areas to the rear of the site. that were popular with dog walkers.

·  Main issues to consider included the following:

o  Use of land within the greenbelt,

o  Highway safety.

o  Intensity of use – there would be limited numbers using the site at any one time.

o  Impact on heritage assets within the conservation area

o  Impact on living conditions of local residents particular those in close proximity to the site.

·  There had been additional representations from residents of Clara Drive which had included queries regarding the supervision of the site, staff training, concern regarding dangerous dogs and hours of operation.

·  Further objections had focussed on the impact on access, not suitable use of the land, impact on biodiversity and noise from barking dogs.

·  An objector to the application had engaged a noise consultant and had provided a report.  It was felt that only limited weight could be afforded to this.

·  The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Objectors to the application addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The development was not essential as per saved policy N33 of the UDPand the proposals did not demonstrate the very special circumstances for development within the greenbelt.

·  The report failed to deal with noise nuisance.  The facility would be in a place with low ambient noise.  The noise of four dogs barking would impact on the quality of life for local residents.

·  The proposed hours  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.