Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for Demolition of car storage facility and construction of a dwelling.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of a car storage facility and construction of a dwelling at CT Cars Garage adjacent to Highfield Stables, Carlton Lane, Guiseley, LS20 9PE.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the presentation and discussion of the application.

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

·  The application was subject to an appeal for non-determination.

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor due to detrimental impact on the greenbelt.

·  Current buildings on the site were used as car storage and an office.

·  The proposed property would have a smaller footprint than the existing buildings.  It would be higher than the existing buildings but not significantly.  There would be an area for parking to the front.

·  This was a brownfield site within the greenbelt.  In-fill development was permitted provided there was no further impact caused than there was by the existing development.

·  The addition of a dwelling would not be non-compliant with regards to sustainability.

·  Members were asked whether they would have granted permission for this application.

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

·  Access to public transport – the nearest bus stop was nearly 2 kilometres away which was further away than guidance contained within the Core Strategy.  The distance to the nearest train station was also further than the guidance contained within the Core Strategy.

·  The site had a lawful use for commercial buildings, but this was now an application for a residential building that was proposed.  Comment on the previous lawful use was not appropriate, as each planning application must be considered in its own right.

·  Advice would be taken as to whether the cess pit would be adequate for a family dwelling.

·  The loss of an employment site was not a concern as it was not considered to be employment intensive.

·  There would be a decrease in the volume of the buildings on the site.  There would also be improvements with the loss of hard standing areas.

·  Members considered the proposals to be an improvement on the existing development.

Members were reminded that an appeal against non-determination of the application was to be held.  Members were therefore not in a position to (and not being asked to) approve the application but to give an indication as to whether they would have approved it if the application had come before them.  If Members indicated that they would have granted permission for the application, the Council would not then defend the appeal and would invite the applicant to consider resubmitting in future if they wished to do so.

A motion was made to move the officer recommendation detailed in the report, this was subsequently and seconded and it was:

RESOLVED – That Members would have been minded to approve the application, if it had been before them for determination, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

It was further queried that should the applicant withdraw the appeal could the decision be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval.

Following advice from the legal adviser, a motion was made that should the application be re-submitted in its current form then it should be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval.  There would also be consultation with local Ward Councillors.  This motion was seconded and it was then voted upon by Members such that it was:

RESOLVED – That should the appeal be withdrawn and re-submitted in its current form, the application to be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval and subject to the conditions outlined in the report.