Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for change of use from a C3 (Dwelling House) to a C2 (Residential Institution) as young person's supported accommodation at No. 16 Chiltern Court, Rodley, Leeds, LS13 1PT.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application 0for change of use from a C3 (Dwelling House) to a C2 (Residential Institution) as young person’s supported accommodation at No. 16 Chiltern Court, Rodley, Leeds, LS13 1PT.

The report recommended to the Panel that the application be approval subject to conditions that were detailed in the report.

Panel Members (referenced above) had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and content of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

A local resident and Ward Councillor attended the meeting and presented their objections to the Panel.  Following this, they provided responses to questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to the following:

·  Concern regarding visitor parking.

·  This was a small residential area without any facilities for 16 to 25 year olds.

·  The property had previously been occupied by a family and then used as an Air BnB. There had been problems with parking during the use as an Air BnB.

·  Concern that the report referred to the proposed occupants as ‘high risk individuals’.

·  The properties on Chiltern Court had covenants not to change the use of the properties.

·  Concern regarding the number of traffic movements in addition to the increased numbers of cars parking.

The applicant/applicant’s representatives attended the meeting and addressed the Panel.  Following this, they provided responses to questions raised by the Panel, which in summary, related to the following:

·  This location was chosen following local risk assessments as a safe place.

·  There would be a pool car for staff, the looked after young people would not normally have access to cars.

·  The property was intended for low risk young people and some of the terminology in the application was incorrectly used.

·  The applicant’s organisation worked with the Local Authority with regards to safeguarding and had a safeguarding policy in place.

·  The young people would receive a social work visit approximately every six weeks.

·  The young people in residence could be transported by pool car or could also use public transport.

·  There was a small courtyard area that residents could use and also a local park nearby.

·  Visitors to the property would be made aware of parking arrangements.

·  The applicant had spoken to the immediate neighbours and other residents regarding the proposals.

·  The applicant was unaware of any covenants on the property.

·  A Category B notice had been sent by recorded delivery.

·  Residents of the property would not have access to the pool car.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  A condition or Section 106 agreement could be made that prevented car ownership by any residents of the property.

·  There was no direct pedestrian access from the property to Town Street.

·  There was a legal obligation for the applicant to submit the correct ownership certificate, in this case Certificate B.  There was still an outstanding issue regarding the submission of this.

·  The application had been advertised appropriately with site notices and local residents had had opportunity to make representations.

·  There was no mandatory requirement for the applicant to consult with neighbours.

·  There was opportunity for parking on Town Street.

·  The covenants were not a material planning consideration.

·  There was no evidence to suggest that the proposed change of use would lead to anti-social behaviour.

·  There was no evidence of any previous planning enforcement in the immediate area.

·  Possibility of having a condition to allow pedestrian access from Town Street.

·  There was no distinction within policy whether allocated parking spaces would be for residents or staff.

·  Further to concerns regarding the submission of Certificate B, it was advised that should Members be minded to accept the officer recommendation it could be subject to the correct ownership certificate being submitted.

·  Concern with the lack of car parking.

·  Concern with the lack of consultation.

·  Concerns of possible nuisance in the future and the need for enforcement?

·  There were car parking issues in the wider area but not just relating to this application.

·  Concern regarding lack of amenity space.

·  There was a need for this kind of accommodation for young people and the application should be supported.

·  A motion proposed that the officer recommendation be approved with additional conditions relating to car ownership and access to Town Street.

·  A further motion was made to refuse the application due to the issues on car parking, traffic and other issues including the lack of consultation and access to Town Street.

Both motions proposed were moved and seconded and upon voting, it was:

RESOLVED – That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and the following conditions:

·  That pedestrian access from Town Street to the property be opened up.

·  Section 106 agreement to prevent residents of the property from owning a car.