Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for two residential blocks including access, parking, drainage and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application for two residential blocks including access, parking provision, drainage layout and landscaping at land off Flax Place, Richmond Street, Marsh Lane and East Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds. The application had been considered at the meeting of the City Plans Panel held on 7 January 2021 when Members had resolved not to accept the officer recommendation and that it be deferred to allow officers to prepare detailed reasons for refusal.

Site plans photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the report:

The following was highlighted:

·  A further letter of objection had been received regarding the lack of benefits for the community and concerns regarding the design and massing.

·  Affordable housing – Members were reminded that there had been a viability appraisal with regard to the provision of affordable housing.  Reasons for refusal with respect to this were that the proposals did not fulfil policy requirements for affordable housing.

·  Open space and landscaping –the development did not provide adequate open space and the landscaping scheme was of poor quality.

·  Design and massing – the proposals were over dominant and failed to protect the visual amenity of the area.

·  Community facilities – the development failed to provide facilities in terms of retail and GP/health provision.

·  Parking and road safety – low provision of on-site parking would lead to parking on the adjacent site and surrounding highways leading to safety issues and damaging the amenity of others.

Members were invited to make comments.  The following was highlighted:

·  The five points individually did not give grounds for refusal but cumulatively highlighted that this proposal was not right for this site.

·  Suggestion that condition 4 be amended with regard to provision of retail units and GP/health facilities.

·  The application was inferior to what was previously proposed on the site.

The Area Planning Manager summarised the discussion.

RESOLVED –

REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW:

1)  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to provide the full policy requirement for affordable housing. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy H5 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review.

2) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to provide the full policy requirement for on-site open space and is without adequate provision of landscaped on-site green and amenity spaces, with the on-site landscaped green and amenity spaces being of poor quality, to the detriment of the amenity of future users of the spaces. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies G5 and P12 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review and Policy AVL8 of the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.

3) The Local Planning Authority considers the design of the proposed development to be unacceptable in respect of its over-dominant massing and the architectural detailing to its facades and that as a result it fails to protect the visual, residential and general amenity of the area. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy P10 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review and the sustainable design guidance contained in the NPPF (paragraphs 124 and 130).

4) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to provide community facilities in the form a retail unit and/or a GP/health surgery.  The proposal is thereby contrary Policy GP5 of the UDP Review and Policy AVL8 and AVL9 of the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.

5) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development’s low provision of car parking spaces on site would result in parking on the adjacent and surrounding highway network to the detriment of highway safety and the amenity of existing residential occupiers. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review and the sustainable transport guidance contained in the NPPF (paragraph 109).

(Councillor A Garthwaite left the meeting at the conclusion of this item).