Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for eleven houses, one block of four bungalows with staff facilities and one block of thirteen flats with one staff accommodation unit.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application (position statement) for the development of eleven houses, one block of four bungalows with staff facilities and one block of thirteen houses with one staff accommodation unit at land off Cockshott Lane, Armley, Leeds.

Members were asked to note the content of the report on the proposal and to provide views in relation to questions posed to aid the progression of the application.

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

The following was highlighted:

·  The application was for a hybrid development with 11 private dwellings and a block of four bungalows with staff facilities and a block of thirteen flats with one staff accommodation unit.

·  There would be creation of a landscaped area in the existing greenspace on site.

·  The site previously housed a 1930s public house building which was demolished in 2004.  The site had since become overgrown with self-seeded vegetation.

·  Some of the trees on the site benefit from Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) that were made in 2004.

·  The site had been used for fly tipping and temporary fencing had been erected to prevent further unauthorised access.

·  There was a public right of way through the site.

·  Access arrangements to the site.

·  Details of the proposed site plan with new access road.

·  Details of house types and internal layouts. 

·  Details of the supported living accommodation proposed for the site.

·  It was expected that a registered social landlord with experience of providing supported living services would manage the supported living accommodation.

·  Positioning of protected trees within the site and how they would be affected by the proposals.  There would be continued discussion with the applicant with regards to this.

·  The greenspace had become overgrown and it was aimed to reinvigorate the area with access for all.  There would also be additional tree planting as part of the biodiversity gain.

·   There was an emerging energy statement which would address policy requirements and this made reference to materials to be used and energy usage.

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

·  It was requested that detailed information demonstrating that the proposals would meet Policies EN1 and EN2 be submitted along with the application.

·  Public rights of way across the site – there were established routes across the site though now partly overgrown and blocked off. These would be resurfaced and reintroduced as part of the proposals.

·  Not all trees on the site were covered by TPOs.  Some of the older trees were covered by the TPOs and it was believed that two of these had been lost before the applicant took control of the site.  There were good quality trees to be retained on the south and west boundaries to the site.  It was difficult to gauge how many protected trees would be lost due to the overgrowth on the site.  Further discussion with regard to trees included the different categories of the protected trees; which trees would be affected by the proposals and the types of trees that could be planted as part of the landscape plan.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

·  There had been a lot of discussion with Planning and there had been many amendments to address concerns.

·  There was a fine balance in providing the private housing alongside the supported living housing while keeping important elements of the landscape and trees.

·  Further amendments could be considered to retain trees.

·  Planting of heavy duty trees rather than feathered trees would be considered.

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

·  Social spaces within the supported living housing.  All the apartments would be designed for accessibility and lifetime living and there would be opportunities for communal areas both externally and internally.  There would be some additional space for the bungalows but was more likely to be used for staff purposes.

·  There was concern expressed that there should be more communal spaces to tackle isolation.

·  In response to questions that were outlined in the report to seek the views of the Panel, the following was highlighted:

o  Further to questions regarding the landscape plan, layout and arboricultural plan, Members raised concerns about the potential loss of protected trees and requested that the layout be revisited to retain trees, and in particular trees T3 and T6. Members noted that this may require a re-configuration of the layout or a less intensive scheme. Members also requested that substantial tree planting be included as part of the scheme. Members noted officer concerns in respect of the proposed landscaping for the area of public open space and requested that heavy standard trees should form part of the landscaping scheme.

o  Members requested that further information be presented to Panel evidence the net gain in bio-diversity and how that would be achieved. It was considered that the points raised in response to earlier questions should help in increasing the bio-diversity offer.

o  Some Members raised concerns about the external appearance of the dwellings. To highlight the point it was considered that the architectural treatment, and detailing, be revisited with a view to breaking up the visual mass of some elevations. It was also requested that more information be provided to aid the understanding of the design and how it responds to its local context. Attention was drawn to the architecture of the building that previously existed on the site. It was requested that further information be provided to help inform the Panel’s understanding of the design approach and this should include the use computer generated imagery.

o  The Panel considered that the design of the scheme should be discussed with Ward Members and the Chair, and their views taken into account, prior to reporting the application back to Panel for a decision.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.