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’.

Councillor Finnigan declared an other registerable interest in Agenda Item 8, Application 21/09404/FU, 5 Church Gardens, Drighlington as he was a Member of Drighlington Parish Council.  The Parish Council had been consulted with regards to the application but he has had no previous involvement in the matter.

There were no apologies.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2022

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.

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 9 residential apartments and 1 town house; demolition of Round House and the construction of one block of 8 residential apartments; demolition of the Coach House and the construction of one block of 6 residential apartments; associated parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the conversion and extension of Belmont House to create 9 residential apartments and 1 town house; demolition of Round House and the construction of one block of 8 residential apartments; demolition of the Coach House and the construction of one block of 6 residential apartments; associated parking and landscaping.

The application had been considered at the meeting held in February 2022 when it had been deferred.  Members had visited the site prior to that meeting. 

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 application had been deferred to explore options to reduce the height and dominance of the proposed extension to Belmont House.  The loss of accommodation would be mitigated by increasing the size of Bray House.  Further information was also sought with regard to the use of Vacant Building Credits on this application.

·  It was proposed to add an additional storey to Bray House.  There would still be 24 units available in the scheme.

·  There had been additional objections and these included the need for additional landscaping to screen the development.

·  It was considered that that the proposals addressed the concerns raised at the meeting in February.

·  All space standards had been exceeded and there would not be any overlooking or loss of privacy to existing residential properties.

·  The scheme was compliant with affordable housing policy and further information on Vacant Building Credits was detailed in the report.

·  Further conditions had been included for tree protection and compliance with policies EN1 and EN2.

·  The application had been recommended for approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and also the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Affordable housing provision of 1 unit on site as discounted market sales housing.

·  Public green space financial contribution of £33,499.22 based on the requirement of 805m2 green space.

·  Sustainable travel fund contribution of £12,276 to provide bus only residential metrocards.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of two storey extensions to side and rear of property, new entrance canopy and new gate in boundary wall.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the erection of two storey extensions to side and rear of property, new entrance porch/canopy to front and new gate in boundary wall at 5 Church Gardens, Drighlington.

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

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

·  The property occupied a prominent position in the corner of the Church Gardens development on the junction of the A58 and Back Lane.

·  Trees on the south-west boundary were covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO).

·  There would be a ‘lean-to’ front porch and a wrap round two storey extension to the south east and south west of the property.  Materials to be used included a timber frame and zinc roof.

·  There would be alterations to the boundary wall to include pedestrian access and a gate.  The wall would also be raised to a height of 2.3 metres.

·  The proposals were considered to significantly detract from the host dwelling due to the corner position and the differing materials to be used.  The area was characterised by stone buildings.  The proposals would also interrupt the existing building line and the significant amount of glazing proposed was not sympathetic to the area.

·  Alternative suggestions had been proposed for the siting of an extension at the property but the applicant had wished to proceed with the current proposal.

·  The proposals would impact the canopy and root protection area of a protected tree.

·  The application was recommended for refusal due to the impact on the character of the area and impact on protected trees.

The applicant addressed the Panel in support of the application.  The following was highlighted:

·  The intention was to provide an external and internal living space to enjoy the garden and views.

·  The architect selected was nationally recognised and had produced award winning designs.

·  The tree survey from the previous development had been considered when the proposals had been designed.

·  There had not been any objections to the application and there was support from neighbouring residents.  There had not been an objection from the Council’s conservation team.

·  In response to the reasons for refusal, it was felt that the proposals did add to the character of the host building and this was also supported by neighbours.  Other properties in the area also had timber framed and glazed extensions.

·  The applicant had a tree report produced by an arboriculture consultant and their findings differed to those of the Council’s landscaping officer.

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

·  There had been communication to the applicant advising that the possibility of siting an extension to the southern section of the property away from the tree line should be explored.

·  The Principal Landscape Officer advised the Panel that the root protection area for the tree that would be affected and this had been submitted as part of the arboricultural impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

To receive and consider the attached report regarding a reserved matters application for erection of 289 dwellings with access within the site, garaging, landscaping and public open space.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a reserved matters  application for the erection of 289 dwellings with access within the site, garaging, parking, landscaping and public open space at Nook Farm, Haigh Moor Road, Tingley.

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

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

·  Outline planning consent was granted at City Plans Panel in May 2020.  This was dealt with by City Plans Panel due to the scale and nature  of the application.

·  The outline planning approval granted development for up to 299 dwellings.

·  There were four parcels of land to be developed.

·  Issues including highways, sustainability, impact on local amenities and accesses to the sites had all been discussed at the outline stage and were not for consideration with this application.

·  Affordable housing and highways contributions had been agreed at the outline stage.  There would also be enhancement and management of Haigh Wood under the legal agreement.

·  Members were asked to consider the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

·  The general character of the area is rural.  There was a consistent use of materials on buildings in the area using stone, brick and render.

·  Haigh Wood was under the ownership of the applicant and there was intention to enhance and preserve the woodlands.

·  There would be buffers of landscaping between the developments to maintain the rural surrounds.

·  The layout was broadly in line with the masterplan that was proposed at the outline stage.

·  The applicant had carried out a housing needs assessment and there would be a mixture of house types

·  The proposals would achieve a 10.08% biodiversity net gain across the sites.

·  CGI images of the differing house types were displayed.

·  The open spaces would be used for a variety of purposes and would provide good visual amenity.

·  There would be connecting footpaths between the sites.

·  The proposals were considered to be well designed and were policy compliant.  The application was recommended for approval.

Local residents addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  There were no approved masterplans at the outline stage.  These were just for illustrative purposes.

·  There had not been effective consultation with the local community.

·  The housing mix does not reflect the needs of the local community.  There had been no assessment of local future housing need.

·  The only local information used was the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which was five years out of date.

·  Too many houses were proposed with regard to the open character of the area.

·  Access from Upper Green Avenue was in a location that was already problematic with traffic.

·  There was key information missing such as a consultation statement and a local housing needs assessment.

·  The Panel was asked to defer the application for further information and to allow proper consultation with the local community.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  There was a need for more affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.