Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use and alterations to former day care facility and offices to form 26 flats and associated external works, including demolition of ramp and rear extension.

Accompanying the report is information relating to financial matters and is considered to be exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3)

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use and alterations to a former day care facility and offices to form 26 flats and associated external works, including demolition of ramp and rear extension, at 80 Cardigan Road, Headingley, Leeds.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting.  Site Plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this application.

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

·  The site fell within the Headingley Conservation area.

·  The building was previously under Leeds City Council ownership and used as a day care centre.

·  It was proposed there would be a one way access sytem with access from Carding Road and exit on to Chapel Road.  This would involve the lowering of the rear wall to improve visibility.

·  Most of the landscaping at the site would be retained.

·  There would be a mix of studio and one and two bedroom flats over all four floors of the building.

·  A previous application at the site had been for 47 flats with significant extensions to the building.

·  The proposed flats were smaller than guidance within the Leeds based standards.

·  The applicant had agreed to not let the flats out to anyone under the age of 21.

·  There would be no affordable housing or greenspace contribution due to viability issues.

·  The proposals would bring back into use a vacant building and there would be improvements to landscaping and boundaries.

A local Ward Member addressed the Panel with concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

·  The highways arrangements were not suitable – Chapel Lane was a very busy road to accommodate exiting traffic

·  Concern regarding the loss of the wall to the rear.

·  Tenancy of such a development could be problematic and would lend itself for student accommodation.

·  The proposed flats were too small.

·  The proposals would not address the attempts to rebalance the population of Headingley.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  Issues raised included the following:

·  The proposals would bring a vacant building back into use.

·  The applicant had struggled to provide a viable scheme for the site and the viability of these proposals had been accepted by the District Valuer.

·  The flats would be aimed at young professionals due to the easy access to Leeds City Centre.

·  The proposals to remove the extension and ramp would improve the conservation area.

Members went into private session.

RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following part of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as designated as follows:

  The appendix to the main report referred to in Agenda Item 9, Application 14/07043/FU - 80 Cardigan Road, LS6 under Schedule 12 Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the affairs of the applicant.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case, maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

Following the private session and in response to Members comments and questions the following was discussed:

·  Concern regarding the size difference between the proposed flats and that specified in the guidance.

·  Concern that the flats would be used for student accommodation.

·  There was felt to be insufficient car parking at the site.

·  Members supported the re-use of the building but did not support the proposals in their current form.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for further discussion with the applicant with regard to the size of the flat units and possible reduction in numbers, reconsideration of the reduction of the wall at egress, reconsideration of parking numbers and submission of a revised viability statement.