Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds
Contact: Andy Booth Email: Andy.Booth@leeds.gov.uk
Link: to view the meeting
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)
Minutes: 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
Minutes: 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)
Minutes: There were no late items.
|
|
Declarations of Interests To disclose or draw attention to any interests in accordance with Leeds City Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’. Minutes: Councillor Wray informed the Panel that he had submitted an objection to Agenda Item 8 - Block B, Victoria Riverside, Atkinson Street, Hunslet and would be withdrawing from the Panel for that item.
In relation to Agenda Item 7 – Bramhope Primary School, Tredgold Crescent, Bramhope, Councillor Anderson informed the Panel that his wife was a governor at Bramhope Primary and that he would be treating the application with an open mind.
|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors R Finnigan and D Ragan.
Councillor G Almass was in attendance as substitute for Councillor D Ragan.
|
|
Minutes - 17 February 2022 PDF 281 KB To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2022 Minutes: RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.
|
|
Application 21/09/09894/FU - Bramhope Primary School, Tredgold Crescent, Bramhope PDF 2 MB To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for proposed alterations and extension to existing school including new landscaping and reconfiguration of site access and car parking and new 2.4 metre boundary fencing. Minutes: The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for proposed alterations and extension to the existing school building including new landscaping and reconfiguration of site access and car parking and new 2.4 metre boundary 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.
Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:
· The proposals would move the school from 1.5 form entry to 2 form entry per year increasing pupil numbers from 328 to 420. · There would be new extensions to the existing building, new pedestrian access to the front, new car parking and perimeter fencing to the site. · There had been a high level of public interest into the application, mainly in objection due to the potential for highway congestion and the loss of an undesignated footpath . There had been some support with regards to the safeguarding and safety of children. · The site was mainly surrounded by residential areas. · The school was split between two buildings with the undesignated footpath running between. · Part of the site fell within the greenbelt. · Physical extensions to the school would be relatively small with most of the expansion being provided by reconfiguration of the internal layouts. · Car parking would be increased by 19 spaces at the Breary Rise car park, which would double the amount of parking available. · There would be improved connectivity between the school buildings. · There would be some tree loss and re-planting would be at a rate that was more than compliant with policy. There would be further investigation as to whether the sycamore tree towards the entrance could be retained but there was some difficulty due to a change in levels. · There would be further landscaping and hedge planting to screen the car park. · The site does not currently have secure perimeter fencing and can be accessed by the public. · The footpath that went through the site had not been registered prior to the application. A claim as a right of way had since been submitted. Should the application be granted, this would become a separate legal matter. · The existing loop arrangement on Breary Rise which is currently used as a pick up and drop off point would no longer be accessible to the public. · The main access off Tredgold Crescent will continue to be shared with the medical centre. · There would be the introduction of a school street order to prevent the picking up and dropping off of children on Breary Rise during these periods. There would also be measures to protect key junctions. There would be a condition to monitor the highway position so that further consideration could be given to any unforeseen issues. · There would be improvements for pedestrians including the widening of traffic islands on Leeds Road. · It was considered that harm to the greenbelt was limited, particularly with the additional planting and there were very special circumstances for development within the greenbelt including ... view the full minutes text for item 85. |
|
To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding the conversion of retail unit into five flats witch changes to parking arrangements and elevations.
Minutes: The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application and listed buildings application for the conversion of a retail unit into five flats with changes to parking arrangements and elevations at Block B, Victoria Riverside, Atkinson Street, Hunslet, LS10 1EU.
Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the applications.
The following was highlighted in relation to the applications:
· It was proposed to convert a space originally intended for retail into five flats. · There was car parking to the front of the building and there would be electric vehicle charging bays. · The layout of the flats was displayed. There would be four one-bedroom flats and one two-bedroom flat. · There had been objections to the applications mainly due to the loss of a potential retail facility and the lack of provision elsewhere in the area. · Locations of the nearest retail outlets were shown. · Commercial units that had been proposed in an adjacent development had been converted into flats. · There was no policy requirement to retain the retail use. · The applications were recommended for approval.
A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application. He was supported by a local Ward Councillor. The following was discussed:
· Residents who had bought properties had been promised a retail facility. · It was important to have more local shopping facilities, particularly for families with children. · A retail facility would provide more of a community feeling in the area. · The other nearest shops required a car journey as the road layout in the area was not suitable for pedestrians. · The proposals were opposed to addressing climate emergency concerns as people would need second cars, make short car journeys and rely on deliveries. · In response to questions, the following was discussed: o The development can’t sustain the amount of parking. o Hunslet centre was the nearest location for other retail outlets. This required traversing major roads. o The proposals would make it necessary for residents to have cars. o The applicant had originally made the offer of a retail unit as part of the original planning permission. o It was not felt that there had been a sufficient effort to market the retail unit. o The applicant had advertised the change of use to flats without consulting residents. o The nearest food retail outlets required a car journey due to the distance and roads to be crossed.
In response to questions and comments, the following was discussed:
· The applicant had engaged the service of an estate agent to market the retail unit. There had not been any firm interest over a period of two years. · The area for the bin store that would have been used for the retail store would no longer be used. There would be no additional bin storage. If arrangements proved to be inadequate it was expected that there would be increased collections. This would be subject to a condition. It was felt that the proposed ... view the full minutes text for item 86. |
|
Date and Time of Next Meeting Thursday, 14 April at 1.30 p.m.
Minutes: Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 1.30 p.m.
|