The submitted report of the Chief Planning
Officer set out an application for a residential development of
eight new dwellings with new access road, associated landscaping
and parking, at Former Co-op Car Park, Off Oakwell Mount,
Gledhow, Leeds, LS8 4AD
Members had attended a site visit earlier in
the day. Photographs and slides were shown throughout the
Members were informed of some corrections to
the report, points of clarification and advised that another
representation critiquing the report had been received that
Para. 6, p.21 – Should read Roundhay Conservation Area
Para. 9, p.21 – clarify that proposal is to use artificial
Para. 11, p.22 – Not 9 additional trees but 131 trees
31 extra heavy standard trees – 4/4.5m tall when planted
– planted in groups or individually
100 regular standard trees – 1.75/2m tall – planted on
Para. 73, p.32 – should again refer to 131 trees
the report was published 3 further representations
places report refers to Oakwood Mount and should be Oakwell
houses too many
that all landscaping will be carried out
- Highway concerns of residents have not been adequately
is not enough space to accommodate the proposed parking
land for the access road is only overgrown due to neglect by the
Risk Management comments were made before the access road was
redesigned and therefore are out of date
officer view that the site is tucked away is refuted
permission be granted a commuted sum should be required to cover
repairs and maintenance of drains.
houses are overbearing
- Kitchen areas too small
- Embankment too steep to be used as gardens
- Clearance of Japanese knotweed needs to meet
of excavation to create access will be impact on stability of
- Concerns about impact of construction on drainage not
- Excavation works will harm residential amenity
Officers sets out that should Members be minded to grant
planning permission it is suggested that additional conditions
should be imposed:
- Details of retaining structures to rear gardens and access
- Details of scheme of measures to be agreed to achieve
bio-diversity net gain (bio-diversity assessment submitted and
require identified measures to be implemented).
18 – wider out to include details measures to protect the
integrity of drainage or services within application site including
were provided with the following information:
proposed access was between 29 and 31 Oakwell Mount. It was noted
that to provide the access, 2 trees which have a Tree Preservation
Order (TPO) would be removed. The trees to be removed are a
sycamore and an ash tree. It was noted that the
landscape officer has no objection to
the removal of the trees as they do not look to be in good health
and are covered in ivy. A further tree,
a sycamore overhangs the access route but is rooted within the
garden of 29 Oakwell Mount would not be removed.
land for access is currently slightly higher than the car parking
area and would require excavations to level this. Members were
advised that to address the technicalities this would be undertaken
as part of a Section 38 agreement to ensure that any services such
as drainage are complied with.
scheme would be four pairs of semi-detached houses. Each property
has an extensive garden that incorporates areas of the woodland.
- It was
noted that the access road would become an adopted
the houses would be 3 bedroomed, with Juliet balconies. On each
pair of houses one house would have a garage plus two parking
spaces, the other house would have two surface parking spaces.
There would also be provision for visitor parking.
- It was
recognised that some of the 100 whip trees proposed to be planted
on the embankment would fail over time.
boundary area linking to the retail development of Home Bargains
would have landscaping.
- It was
acknowledged that the gardens would be dominated by the current
trees to the rear of the garden. The applicant had provided slides
to show how they would address the slope of the land to provide
usable garden space. Members were informed of the following
information in relation to garden space:
- Plot 1
and 2 - 7 metres of flat area with a retaining wall of 3 metres in
height with steps up to the wooded area
- Plot 3
and 4 – 9 metres before the rise
- Plot 5
and 6 – 9 metres with the retaining wall 2.3 metres in
- Plot 7
and 8 – 2.5 metres of genuine flat garden with a retaining
wall of 1 metre.
- It was
noted that none of the construction areas would encroach on to the
roots of the trees.
Officers recognised that the site was a difficult site, but it
complied with planning policies. It was acknowledged that Members
did need to consider the proximity of neighbouring properties,
issues of the trees, amenities of future occupiers and the access
road. It was noted that the application did meet size standards on
rooms and parking provision. Officers
acknowledged the concerns of the residents in relation to drainage
issues but assured Members that this would be dealt with looking at
the excavations works required and there was a condition to address
this for a pre work survey and any remedial works as
Bickley a resident attended the meeting as an objector to the
application, speaking on behalf of his neighbours. He raised the
Flood risk management, highways matters and drainage
during and after construction.
He cited the planning authorities’ reasons for
refusing a previous application for this site, for a block of
retirement apartments. He was of the view that the reasons
presented then applied to this current proposal. He listed them
Impact on Trees
Lack of affordable housing
Lack of green space provision. He recognised that
the design of the gardens had been changed but the gardens would
still slope steeply.
Impact on neighbouring amenity by the way of
dominance. The proposed 10.4 metres in height would make them
overbearing on neighbouring houses, particularly number
Poor level of amenity afforded to future occupants
had been noted by the Civic Trust in relation to the size of the
kitchen area in some of the properties, which in Mr Bickley’s
view was no bigger than a walk-in wardrobe. Poor amenity also
related to outside space which in his view would be largely
inaccessible due to the steep embankment.
Poor level of outlook, as the houses would look over
the nearby supermarket car park and loading bay.
It was his view that the development did not comply
with climate change policy. The Civic Trust had identified that the
design of the houses did not afford the use of solar panels due to
the design of the shape of the roofs and dormers.
It was in the report that a biodiversity survey had
been undertaken but he was unable to see it on the planning portal.
He had concerns about the trees being felled during nesting season
and the removal of two mature trees as well as the removal of flora
and fauna and the impact this would have on the biodiversity of the
Mr Bickley also referenced another report in which
an officer had asked a number of questions such as other options
for this site, biodiversity and the need for the view of the
conservation officer, which in his view had not been
Mr Bickley had noted some comments from the
conservation officer which had said bat and nesting boxes should be
included at this site.
Responding to questions from Members Mr Bickley said:
- Smaller houses were more in keeping with the area.
from Gledhow Rise would be more
suitable as the proposed access was narrow and there were concerns
that earth removal at the proposed access would damage
- Residents had received no consultation and concerns raised about
drainage had been ignored. When he had first heard about this
application, he had tried to make contact by letter with the
applicant and officers. He had also tried to make representation
through the planning process but was of the view he had been
proposed access was narrow and would not have a footpath. Oakwell
Mount is a busy road and has congestion due to parking. The parking
is not from residents of Oakwell Mount but from people using the
of the residents of Oakwell Mount did have loft conversions,
however, this had not added to the height of the
Windress the agent, Mr Whittaker the
applicant and a resident of Oakwell Mount who was in support of the
development attended the meeting and provided the Panel with the
application complies with local and national policies. Detailed
discussions had been taking place with officers for over a
proposals are acceptable in relation to living conditions for
existing residents and future occupiers. It is a well laid out and
designed scheme as set out in the report.
technical consultees had raised no objections. It was noted that
conditions had been added to the proposals.
site is predominantly brownfield, in a sustainable location, close
to amenities including Roundhay Park.
development would provide much needed family housing and a
significant number of trees.
Windress said that the report robustly
addressed all planning considerations, and the scheme meets or
exceeds all local and national policies.
Whittaker explained that his company is a small local Leeds based
developer which has successfully delivered similar schemes in the
Oakwood area. He said that all those who worked for the company and
suppliers to the company were from Leeds and the surrounding
Whittaker went on to say that he is a resident of Oakwood and had
lived in the area for 25 years. He regularly uses the town centre
for shopping and was of the view this gave him reasonable knowledge
of the area and the site.
said that there had been difficulties with this site in relation to
anti-social behaviour and that it had been illegally occupied by a
third party which had resulted in eviction. Due to this the car
park had been fenced off as it was in separate ownership to the
large retail store and car park. The site had been derelict for
approximately 6 years.
resident informed the Members that he was the resident of 31
Oakwell Mount. He supported this scheme as it was his view that
this was better than previous schemes and would be better than
looking over a derelict car park. He said that he had had concerns
about the cutting down of the trees and the access road but was
aware of the conditions to be imposed and was of the view that
these were suitable and if necessary, would be
answering questions from the Panel, the Members were provided with
developers had engaged with officers and Cllr Martin and more
recently with residents. It was noted that more engagement would be
required going forward in relation to construction
- It was
recognised that the access road was close to properties 29 and 31
Oakwell Mount, but it would be constructed on own foundations. It
was noted that there were no footpaths proposed, there had been one
at the side of 31 Oakwell Mount on an earlier design. However,
highways officers had preferred that the road was wider to allowing
passing places and for large vehicles such as refuse vehicles to
access the site.
- It was
acknowledged that some of the gardens were smaller, but not
everyone wanted a large garden, and the site was close to Roundhay
relation to solar panels, it was noted that this would be
considered by the developer to see if possible.
resident explained to the Panel about the anti-social behaviour
which currently takes place on the site and the issue they have
with dumped waste.
Members questioned officers, the following points were
94 of the submitted report was highlighted which addressed the
issue of impact on wildlife. It was the view of officers that the
site was unlikely to provide a suitable habitat for protected
relation to the management of the trees at the end of the gardens
it would be difficult to control this as the land would be in
private ownership. However, a condition could be imposed requiring
details of a management scheme for the woodland to be
- It was
noted that the hard standing, which is there at present and the
lighting, would limit the biodiversity value of the site. There is
no water course in the area. It was the view that the new
substantial landscaping would provide net gain to biodiversity.
There is birdlife in the wooded area, and it could be suggested
that bat boxes and bird boxes form part of the
- Conditions could be added to limit any built structures and
relation to access from Gledhow Rise it
was noted that this had not been raised as an issue, but it could
be suitable for access. It was noted that this could be looked
refuse vehicle can enter from the proposed access and turn round.
It was suggested that smaller refuse vehicles could be
- Members suggested that fencing might be better as a boundary
treatment linking Home Bargains car park with a few trees to break
up the view. Members also suggested the consideration of a wall and
landscaping for this area which would be more sustainable and
require less maintenance.
- Members did have concerns about the height of the retaining
walls in the gardens and suggested that these should be fenced
- Members were advised that as this was a small cul-de-sac type
development of 8 dwellings there was no requirement to have a
footway, as movement of vehicles would be relatively
were of the view that this was half-way to being a good scheme.
However, the Panel still felt that there were still issues to be
addressed, and that consultation should be undertaken with
residents and local ward councillors. Members were of the view that
access from the opposite side of the scheme should be
Stephenson also suggested that there was a need to explore boundary
treatment and permitted development rights. He proposed a motion to
defer and delegate to Roundhay ward members. However, after taking
advice from the Legal Officer he withdrew this motion.
Lamb proposed a motion to defer and for the application to be
brought back to Panel after consultation with residents and local
ward members. This was seconded by Cllr Taylor. This was put to the
RESOLVED – To defer for further
consultation on issues as set out above and be brought back to
Panel for consideration.