Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposed reasons to refuse the applications

(Report attached)

Further to minute 66 of the meeting held 4^th November 2010 when Panel resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to approve the applications, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report for Members consideration.

Officers reported that the applicant had now submitted appeals against non-determination for all the applications and the Panel was now requested to consider the recommendations as being the grounds which will form the Council’s case at appeal.

Officers suggested they proposed a reasonable approach to the overall development of the site, having regard to the forthcoming appeals; and had set out proposed reasons to refuse Applications 08/04214/OT: 08/04216/FU and 08/04217/CA as requested but had included recommendations to approve 08/04219/FU and 08/04220/LI (Rose Court). Grammatical amendments to two of the proposed reasons for refusal were reported.

Members considered each of the proposals before them. The Panel noted that both English Heritage and the Victorian Society had not objected to the principle of conversion for Rose Court. Members were in general minded to support the proposed recommendations with regards to the re-use of Rose Court subject to the detail of the car parking arrangements and access from Victoria Road to ensure the route did not impact on greenspace.

However Members remained concerned about the proposals for the remainder of the site and considered each application in particular having regard to the following:

PPG17 - the weight and relevance of PPG17 to Application 08/04214/OT. It was felt that a further reason to refuse the outline application based on national policy PPG17 could be added as this could be substantiated at the forthcoming appeal. Members commented on the value of this greenspace  to the listed building setting in the Conservation Area within this dense inner city area and felt this was an important consideration, regardless of whether the greenspace had been publicly accessible in the past.

Policy N6 – Members considered the weight and relevance of Policy N6 to Application 08/04214/OT and had regard to the advice provided to the LPA by Leading Counsel. Members noted that although they felt the re-provision of the playing fields to Alwoodley was unacceptable; this re-provision could be deemed to be acceptable in terms of function as defined by Policy N6 (1). The Panel received advice in terms of the difficulties of relying on local Policy N6 at the forthcoming appeal and resolved not to include reference to it in the proposed reasons to refuse the application

Affordable Housing – there was some discussion over whether this should be provided on-site within a Section 106 Agreement rather than to secure funding for the acquisition of former Houses in Multiple Occupation but this was not supported by the Panel

Members also discussed their concern over the extent and impact of the proposed demolition and the view that any new build should be kept to the northern part of the site. The Panel considered each proposed recommendation individually and also whether to include reference to PPG17 within the reasons to refuse Application 08/04214/OT. Following a vote on each application

RESOLVED – That had the Panel been in a position to do so, the Panel would have made the following decisions

a) Application 08/04214/OT (Outline application for new build development) – That the application would have been refused for the following reasons:

1)  The proposed development, due to its scale, layout, density and impact on the character of the site including its open areas, would be harmful to the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Headingley Conservation Area. In addition, the submitted plans fail to adequately demonstrate that the development, and in particular the 4/5 storey flats block to the south-west corner of the site and the potential for impact on trees in the vicinity of that block, would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies N12, N13, N19 and LD1 of the Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, the Headingley and Hyde Park Neighbourhood Design Statement and to national planning guidance set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS5

2)  The proposed development would incur the loss of open playing pitch land which makes a significant visual contribution to the character of the area contrary to national planning guidance set out in PPG17

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillor Wadsworth required it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter

b) Application 08/04216/FU (Change of use and extension including part demolition of school building and stable block to 32 flats and 4 terrace houses in Stable Block) - That the application would have been refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed demolition of that part of the main school building to the east of the retained section of building would result in the loss of part of a building which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Headingley Conservation Area; and would consequently cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area. In addition, there is no acceptable scheme for the redevelopment of the site and the submitted plans fail to adequately demonstrate that the proposed replacement development would justify the extent of demolition and would therefore adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies N12, N13, N19 of the Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, the Headingley and Hyde Park Neighbourhood Design Statement and to national planning guidance set in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS5

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillors Leadley and Wadsworth required it to be recorded that they abstained from voting on this matter

c) Application 08/04217/CA (Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of rear and side extensions to main school building) - That the application would have been refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed demolition to the east of the retained section of building would cause the unacceptable loss of parts of the building which contribute positively to the character of the Headingley Conservation Area. In addition, there is no approved scheme for redevelopment of the site against which to assess the proposed demolition. The proposed demolition would therefore be contrary to policies N18a and N18b of the Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, the Headingley and Hyde Park Neighbourhood Design Statement and to national planning guidance set out in PPS5

Under the provision of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillor Wadsworth required it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter

d) Application 08/04219/FU (Change of use involving alterations of Rose Court to form 12 flats) - That the application would have been approved subject to the specified conditions contained within the report plus an additional condition to ensure the submission of a detailed plan setting out access arrangements which follow the existing hard standing; and parking arrangements to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillors Matthews and Chastney required it to be recorded that they voted against this matter and Councillor Wadsworth required it be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter

e) Application 08/04220/LI (Listed Building application for alterations of Rose Court to form 12 flats) - That the application would have been agreed subject to the specified conditions contained within the submitted report

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillors Matthews and Chastney required it to be recorded that they voted against this matter and Councillor Wadsworth required it be recorded that he abstained from voting on this matter

The Panel adjourned for a short time at this point. Councillor Taggart resumed the Chair on recommencement of the meeting