Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion and extension of Belmont House to create 11 residential apartments; demolition of Round House and Coach House to be replaced by 7 and 6 residential apartments and other ancillary uses.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the conversion and extension of Belmont House to create 11 residential apartments; demolition of Round House and Coach House to be replaced by 7 and 6 residential apartments and other ancillary uses.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

·  There would be 24 residential units in total.  There was a slight amendment to the description of the application as the conversion of Belmont House would be for 10 apartments and 1 town house.

·  The site fell within the Headingley Conservation area.

·  There had been previous approval for the three buildings to be used for residential purposes.

·  The single storey extension on Belmont House would be demolished and replaced with a three storey extension.

·  Differences in levels across the site.

·  There would be four trees removed from the site and replaced at a ratio of 3:1.  Three of these trees were to be removed for the development and one because it was in a dangerous condition.

·  Neighbourhoods for Living guidance was met with regard to distances to existing buildings.

·  The extension on the rear of Belmont House would be made of stone to match the existing building.

·  The replacement building for the Coach House would be one storey higher.

·  CGI images of how the proposals would look were displayed.

·  The site required 15% affordable housing which equated 4 units.  There would only be 1 unit following the applicant’s request for Vacant Building Credit.

·  There would be an 11% biodiversity net gain following the development.

·  It was considered that the level of parking with the addition of residential permits was acceptable.

·  The scheme was compliant with policies EN1 and EN2.

·  The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement as outlined in the report.

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  He was supported by a local Ward Councillor.  The following was highlighted:

·  Main objections focussed on the three storey extension to the rear of Belmont House as this was too high and too close to existing properties would lead to a loss of privacy for local residents.

·  There had not been any communication with local residents at the design stage and the developers had not viewed the site from the western and southern side of the boundaries.

·  There had been objections from all Ward Councillors.

·  There was no opposition to a residential scheme and would like to see a reduction of the three storey extension to two storeys.  There was other space on the site for additional units.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  The mix of modern and traditional architecture was acceptable.  The position of the extension was not suitable.

o  It was disappointing that there was only one affordable unit.  Headingley needed affordable housing and the use of Vacant Building Credit was not appropriate.

o  Those living to the north and east of the site would not be affected by an extension to the proposals on Bray House.

o  The proposed extension would have a visual impact on existing properties which would also be overlooked.  There was sufficient space elsewhere on the site for extra units without affecting residential properties.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The applicant had work collaboratively with various Council departments in the design of the proposals which met all technical standards.

·  There had been extensive pre-application consultations which had addressed a number of concerns including those of local residents.

·  The Coach House was to be replaced with a similar building which was marginally bigger.

·  The scheme would provide a mix of sustainable high quality residential units.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  Vacant Building Credits – this regime is built into the framework and there had been significant negotiations which had shown that the necessary criteria had been met and it was calculated that the scheme could go ahead with one affordable unit.

o  Consultation – there had been two leaflet drops to local residents and meetings with a Ward Councillor and a local resident.  The applicant was aware of concerns and there had been significant alterations to the proposals including the removal of balconies.

o  The use of other space on the site had been considered.  This was difficult due to the protection of trees.  Bray House would be smaller than was initially planned due to the need to protect tree roots.

o  Replacement of trees would exceed the required ratio of 3:1.

o  The replacement Coach House would have an additional story but would only be two thirds of a storey higher than the original building.

o  There would be photovoltaic panels on the flat roofed parts of the buildings so as to reduce their visibility.

o  Due to the constraints of the site it was not viable or practical to have ground or air sourced heat pumps.

o  Two full units would be lost without the third storey on Belmont House.

o  To put another story on Bray House may cause overlooking elsewhere. 

o  The Round House had been designed as an office building and was not suitable for conversion for residential.

o  It was proposed to preserve and re-use as much of the Yorkshire stone on site as was possible.

o  Other options for the site had been considered but there were constraints on the footprints for the buildings.

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

·  Increasing the height of Bray House would impact the tree protection zone and there would also be an impact on Belmont House which would require further assessment.

·  From a conservation point of view there was an assessment that the replacement building and extension did not ignore the style of existing buildings and would not have a detrimental visual impact.  The materials to be used had been carefully considered.

·  It was considered that use of Vacant Building Credit did apply to this application and reasons for this were given to the Panel.

·  Conditions regarding Policies EN and EN2 could be added to ensure that the requirements are met.

·  The scheme as policy compliant with regard to parking spaces.  The access road to the site was narrow but there were parking restrictions in place.  There was sufficient access room for refuse vehicles.

·  Concern that the third floor extension on Belmont House was over-dominant and that there should be further consideration to extending the height of Bray House.

·  Concern regarding the use of Vacant Building Credits and reduction in the provision of affordable housing.

A motion was made to move the officer recommendation with an additional condition regarding Policies EN1 and EN2.  This was seconded and put to the vote.  The Panel voted against.

Following further discussion, a motion was made to defer the application to allow for further negotiation regarding the extension and design.  A further amendment was made to request further information with regards to the use of Vacant Building Credits with the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for the following:

·  Further negotiation with the applicant regarding the extension to Belmont House and consideration be given to extending Bray House.

·  Further information regarding design and materials.

·  Further information regarding Vacant Building Credits.