Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer which gives a position statement on the applications for the demolition of dyeworks buildings, erection of 109 houses and retention of mill façade and development to form 14 flats (13/02409/FU) and conservation area consent application for demolition of dyeworks buildings and one chimney (13/02408/CA)

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the latest position on proposals for the demolition and retention of dyeworks buildings at Green Lane Yeadon and the erection of a residential development.  It was noted that the site was within Yeadon Conservation Area

  The extent of the demolition proposed by the applicants was outlined.  Members were also shown a plan drawn by the Council’s Conservation Officer who recommended the retention of a greater number of buildings

  Concerns raised by Leeds Civic Trust; local residents; Councillor G Latty and Councillor Campbell were outlined, which related to the extent of demolition being proposed; the need for the brick chimney to be retained; loss of employment land; loss of mill ponds; poor layout of the proposed residential development and highway issues, including the need for some traffic controls to be included

  Members were advised that on the principle of development, although there would be the loss of employment land, other employment sites were close by and as the site was a brownfield, sustainable site the principle of development was considered to be acceptable to Officers

  Regarding the extent of the proposed demolition, Officers had concerns about this and wished to work further with the applicant to retain more of the buildings.  Although the applicants had made reference to the comments of West Yorkshire Archaeology Service in support of their position on demolition, these differed from the Conservation Officer’s views and that there was a need for more work on this element to enhance the Conservation Area

  In relation to the mill ponds, these were significant features and had ecology value, but that if both of these had to be retained, the site would begin to become unviable

  Members’ views on highways issues were required and some indication on whether the Panel would wish to see the scheme again, if it was recommended for refusal, or whether it would be sufficient to delegate such a decision to Officers

  The Panel discussed the proposals and in response to the specific points raised in the report for Members’ consideration provided the following comments:

·  regarding the principle of development, that a residential or even a mixed-use scheme on the site could be acceptable but concerns existed about the proposal before Panel

·  concerning the acceptability and extent of demolition proposed, including the larger brick chimney, that whilst some demolition was accepted, currently too much demolition was proposed; that the larger brick chimney should be retained and the character of the area retained

·  in respect of the design and layout, concerns were raised about the proposed use of artificial stone and there should be as much re-use of existing stone as possible; that a more imaginative development layout and was needed as were better house types

·  concerning the mill ponds, that there was a need for some recognition of these and their historical importance in the layout

·  regarding highways matters, that the proposed access point was not ideal but possibly the least hazardous; that the use of Focus Way as an additional/alternative access was not supported.  In respect of pedestrian access, the applicant was asked to investigate further the possibility of an access on to Cricketer’s Green

·  the need for the site to be developed but that the scheme was not acceptable in its current form and that the applicant should be invited to withdraw the scheme and resubmit the proposals or that the refusal of the current scheme could be deferred and delegated to Officers, based upon the concerns raised by Members

Reference was made to an e-mail sent by the applicant expressing

criticism of Officers, with Members stating the comments were unfounded and not helpful to the process

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made