Minutes for Plans Panel (West) meeting, Nov 27 2008, 1.30PM official page

Councillor Campbell welcomed all present and informed the meeting that Mr M Sellens, Area Planning Manager and lead officer for Plans Panel West, had been promoted to the post of Head of Planning Services. Members expressed their congratulations to Mr Sellens

To identify items which may have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)

The Chair accepted one late item of business onto the agenda for consideration. This related to an appeal decision which had only recently been received from the Planning Inspector, the outcome of which could have bearing on consideration of any future applications for student housing (minute 95 refers)

To declare any personal/prejudicial interest for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purposes of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

Councillor M Coulson – Application 07/05428/RM – redevelopment at Midpoint Office Park – declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Bradford Corridor Working Group (minute 102 refers)

Councillors J Marjoram and L Yeadon – Application 08/06094/FU – proposals for replacement student accommodation at Trinity and All Saints College, Horsforth – declared personal interests as former students of the College (minute 104 refers)

Councillor J Matthews – Application 08/03988/FU – Proposed retail unit at 232 Cardigan Road, Headingley – declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a local resident living very close to the application site (minute 101 refers)

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held 30^th October 2008

(Copy attached)

RESOLVED – That, subject to an amendment to Minute 86 to include Councillor Leadley within the list of Members who abstained from voting (10a Chapel Street, Farsley) the minutes of the last meeting held 30^th October 2008 be agreed as a correct record

Minute 87 – the former Lounge Cinema – a report had been anticipated for this meeting however it was noted that detailed legal advice was being sought and would be presented to the next Panel

To note the decisions of the Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, on appeals following refusal of planning permission by this Panel or under delegated powers:

(i)                 Applications 07/07494/LI & 07/07499 – Appeal against refusal of Listed Building consent and planning permission for alterations to former toilet block to form one 2 storey, two bedroom dwelling, All Saints Court, Cattle Market Street, Otley

(ii)               Application 08/00017/OT – Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of a detached house, rear of 19 Woodhall Hills, Calverley

The Chief Planning Officer submitted reports setting out the decisions of the Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, on appeals following refusal of planning permission by this Panel or under delegated powers:

(i)                 Applications 07/07494/LI & 07/07499/FU – Appeal against refusal of Listed Building consent and planning permission for alterations to former toilet block to form one 2 storey, two bedroom dwelling, All Saints Court, Cattle Market Street, Otley. It was the decision of the Inspector to allow the appeals and to grant planning permissions and listed building consent, subject to conditions, in a letter dated 22^nd October 2008.

(ii)               Application 08/00017/OT – Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of a detached house, rear of 19 Woodhall Hills, Calverley. It was the decision of the Inspector to dismiss the appeal in a letter dated 7^th November 2008.

The Panel were in receipt of a report by the Chief Planning Officer outlining the decision of the Inspector at the appeal against the refusal of permission for the development of student accommodation on the former Glassworks site, following a Public Inquiry on 8-10 October 2008. Panel had refused the application on 27 February 2008.

The Inspectors’ decision had been received after the release of the agenda for this meeting; however, due to the importance of the findings of the Inspector, it was felt in the Panel’s best interest to receive the information as soon as possible in order to assess its impact on existing policies and to have regard to those findings in future decision making

It was the decision of the Inspector to dismiss the appeal in a letter dated 19^th November 2008. Officers reported this was the first appeal won in terms of Policy H15 and added they were encouraged the Inspector had felt the general arguments relating to impact of student numbers on a locality could be accepted. The Panel noted that local community representatives had attended the Inquiry to support the Councils’ case. The Panel welcomed the decision and thanked officers for their work in defending the case

RESOLVED – To note the appeal decision

To consider the joint report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) and the Chief Planning Officer on an objection received to City of Leeds Tree Preservation Order (No.42) 2008 at St Josephs Nursing Home, Outwood

(Report attached)

The Assistant Chief Executive and the Chief Planning Officer submitted a joint report on an objection received to the City of Leeds Tree Preservation Order (No. 42) 2008 at St Joseph’s Nursing Home, Outwood Lane, Horsforth. The Panel noted the officer response to the specific comments made by local ward Councillor Cleasby

RESOLVED – That City of Leeds Tree Preservation Order (No 42) be confirmed as originally served

To consider outline and detailed applications together with any applications for the display of advertisements

The attached Plans List Schedule contains a list of all the applications to be considered at this months meeting and contained within the separate Plans List

The Panel considered and dealt with applications for outline and detailed planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RESOLVED – That the applications be determined as set out in minutes 98 to 105 below

Plans of the site and the proposals were displayed at the meeting. Officers reported this application revised a previous Reserved Matters application for a larger scheme approved on 21 February 2008.

Officers highlighted the amendments to the scheme and reported receipt of comments from the highways and landscaping officers. The Public Rights of Way officer had also made comments to ensure the revised highways access would not encroach upon the bridleway around the site. A letter of representation had been received from local ward Councillor A Carter suggesting the school gates leading to the ginnel towards Rockwood Road should close at 17:00 hours; however local residents had requested a condition attached to the extant permission should be attached to this permission as follows “the gates should be opened 30 minutes prior to and be closed 30 minutes after the start of and end of a normal school day”. Officers now requested this condition be attached to any permission.

The Panel considered the representation from Mrs K Stewart on behalf of Woodhall and Rockwood Road Residents Association and discussed landscaping and the current practice with regard to the school gates. Members additionally discussed highways matters, particularly the use of Rockwood Road as a drop off point by parents noting the main access to the school was the Ring Road. The Panel suggested that signage be reviewed in conjunction with local ward Councillors to alleviate the problems caused by on-street parking in the Rockwoods.

RESOLVED – That the Reserved Matters application be approved subject to the specified conditions contained within the report with the additional proviso that local ward Councillors be involved in discussions regarding the signage scheme (Condition No.10)

The Panel noted this was a temporary request for the siting of classrooms whilst refurbishment works were undertaken (detailed in minute 98 above). Revised location plans and photographs of the site were displayed.

Officers reported local residents and local ward Councillor A Carter were concerned about the close proximity of the proposed units to dwellings. The applicant had sought to address this by making some adjustment so that the units were further away and re-siting the quieter use units (storeroom and staffroom) nearer residents’ homes. Officers reported that landscape screening would have to be in place prior to the location of the temporary units.

The Panel heard representation from Mrs K Stewart on behalf of the Woodhall and Rockwood Residents Association. Members noted that the school had located temporary units along the access road to the Ring Road boundary of the site previously and considered this to be a more preferable location. The Panel were however mindful the School had specialist sports status and the widened highways access could impinge into playing pitch provision which may adversely affect the schools’ status. The Panel was not minded to approve the application with the units in their present proposed location, however

RESOLVED – To defer consideration of the application to allow time for further discussions on the siting of the units particularly whether this could be achieved away from local residents towards the Ring Road boundary. If agreement could be reached on re-siting the units further away from residents, the application can be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval. If this cannot be achieved, the application should be reported back to the next appropriate meeting for determination

Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. The Panel noted the site lay within an industrial estate and access to the estate was problematic due to the right angled turn at the junction which larger vehicles found difficult to approach. It was reported the applicant had already funded some highways works to Milners Road. Members noted that letters of complaint received by Highways Services regarding the access point and vehicles waiting for the businesses to open could not attribute all the vehicles to this applicant. Furthermore; complaints made to LCC Environmental Health services regarding plant and machinery noise could not be attributed to the application site.

The Panel noted the grant of this permission for a further 10 years would afford the Authority the opportunity to monitor the new operator and the time span would tie in with the lease of the site

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the specified conditions contained within the report

(Councillor Andrew withdrew from the meeting)

Site plans and architects drawings of the proposals were displayed at the meeting. The Panel noted the building had existing permission for 11 flats to the upper floors and 3 more on the ground floor had been approved in place of the crèche facility. This application proposes an alternative use of the ground floor crèche as a retail unit.  

(Councillor Andrew returned to the meeting)

Officers highlighted this site lay within a designated S6 Policy Area where a deficiency in convenience goods retailing had been identified. The Authority however would always seek to locate such retail proposals within local centres, therefore this application was recommended for refusal

(Councillor Matthews withdrew from the meeting, resuming his seat shortly after)

The Panel then heard representation from Mr A Watts on behalf of the applicants who commented on the available parking spaces and the designation of the site.

Councillor Matthews declared a prejudicial interest in the matter as a local resident living in close proximity to the site and withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the formal decision making process

The Panel went onto discuss the location of the site having regard to retail opportunities in the locality, and the perceived impact this retail outlet may have. Officers responded to the applicants interpretation of the policy and went onto state that the test for “retail deficiency” in the locality had not yet been undertaken. The Panel were not convinced by the proposed Retail Policy reason No.2 to refuse, however were concerned about the highways issue and took the view that shoppers would not use the proposed undercroft car park but park on street which could exacerbate existing problems in the area. Noting the view of the Members it was

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate the application to the Chief Planning Officer for refusal and clarification on whether Reason No.2(retail) could be sustained. If not, refusal of the application would be limited to Reason No.1 (highways)

Further to minute 71 of the meeting held 2 October 2008 when the Panel resolved to defer the application and seek negotiations with the applicants over certain areas of concern, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a further report on the application setting out the revisions made to the scheme

Plans and architects drawings of the proposals were displayed at the meeting along with plans and drawings of the scheme as presented in October for comparison. Officers highlighted the revisions made to the scheme as follows:

Landscape buffer – 3 dwellings removed from the scheme (now 169 in total) which provided an additional 2m depth to the buffer zone achieving an average depth of 7 to 9 m

Gardens – the scheme layout had been amended to afford better sized gardens to 10 units. It was reported that 35 of the 169 units had sub standard gardens at up to or just under 50% of the gross floor area and the Neighbourhoods for Living Guide (NFL) suggested two-thirds. Officers stated the applicant had argued that most gardens on site would be 10m long and if the Guide was followed each garden would be 17-18 m long.

Materials – a number of different brick types to be employed

Affordable Housing – the 21 sub market units offered did reflect the mix of house styles and were spread throughout the site.

Design – quality of design had been reviewed and amendments made to the satisfaction of the Design Team in terms of revisions to the flat block to provide interest to the gable ends, better quality windows and inclusion of a central feature. The details of the house types had been revised and ridge heights addressed to the 2 to 3 storey dwellings to provide relief

The Panel made the following comments

-          Concern that 66 out of the 132 gardens would be deemed to be sub standard in NFL terms. Commented that those deemed to be sub standard within the north of the site were compensated somewhat by communal space, however those in the southern part of the site were not. Members felt garden size was particularly important for the 3 storey family homes

-          Concern that although the ridge height had been addressed to provide more definition between the 2 and 3 storey homes, a single 3 storey element at the end or middle of the block was odd and should be grouped to prevent excessive variation.

-          Remained unhappy that the width of the landscape buffer still proposed would be less than 10m in most places as this was a sensitive location and as some gardens were seen to be sub standard the provision of an adequate buffer was important. Inadequate buffer could suggest the scheme density was too high. Officers responded that 45 dwellings per hectare density was acceptable

-          consideration of PPS17 in relation to needs of  children being taken in to account for provision of family housing

Officers responded that further revision to the scheme to facilitate more garden provision would require the scheme to be substantially re-designed. The Panel noted the officer recommendation to approve the scheme, but following a vote were not ready to do so. In view of this the Chair invited Mr Ian Thompson on behalf of the applicants to address the meeting.

Members then considered those elements of the scheme they did support and set out those which they considered needed further discussion as

-          sub standard gardens

-          sub standard landscape buffer

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for one cycle to allow time for further discussions on the two remaining areas of concern

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Plans and photographs of the site were displayed with proposed layout plans and elevations.

Officers described the proposals as a fairly simple conversion, which would preserve both the building and the character of the Conservation Area and not adversely impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Additionally the scheme would bring some improvements by the removal of inappropriate additions. A proposed window on the northern gable in the original scheme had been removed to prevent overlooking

The Panel discussed the access to the site and noted the highway officer comments that vehicular visibility at the junction was acceptable although some works to the highway to temper speed could be reviewed – such as resurfacing. Members suggested the re-use of bricks would ensure the replacement extensions and any patching works matched existing brickwork.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the specified conditions contained in the report, plus the re-use of existing bricks where required

(Councillor Andrew withdrew from the meeting and resumed his seat a short time after)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report setting out the current position with regards to proposals to redevelop student accommodation within the grounds of Trinity & All Saints College.

Members of the Panel visited the site and viewed the interior of older and newer student residences prior to the meeting. Plans and photographs of the site along with artists impressions of the development proposals were displayed at the meeting.

Officers reported the block would be positioned in the lowest part of the site in order to relate to the 5 and 6 storey buildings on site. A photograph of the site with the new block superimposed was displayed. Officers reported the comments of the Design Section; Landscaping; Access Officers and Highways which had been received after the despatch of the agenda and noted the receipt of letters of representation from local ward Councillors Cleasby and Townsley and 18 local residents

The Panel having viewed the student residences, welcomed the proposal to demolish and replace the blocks and discussed the following:

-          requested the College present an overview for the redevelopment proposals for the whole site in order to avoid piecemeal development, bearing in mind the likely expansion of the College

-          the perceived bland design of the proposed new block

-          the height and massing of the block which would be a significant addition to the landscape and visible from a distance

-          provision of car parking on site. Members noted the intention to retain the existing level of parking on site however commented that on street parking within the locality generated by visitors to the College was a problem and should be better addressed by the applicant

Members considered the three areas for consideration outlined within the report and commented

·        The principle of demolition and replacement of the existing student accommodation block on site was supported  

·        Remained unconvinced at present that the building is of good enough design currently for the proposed height and massing of the proposals. However it was suggested that with better quality detailed design and particular attention to materials this concern might be overcome. It was noted that a good design analysis had been submitted by the applicant which would be included in the final report to Panel

·        Highways matters and car parking remained a concern although it was noted the number of students on site would not increase at the moment. Officers reported a satisfactory Travel Management Plan and Transport Assessment had been submitted but Members requested a detailed car parking strategy and Traffic Management Plan designed to reduce car journeys

RESOLVED – That the comments of the Panel be noted and the applicants be invited to give a presentation providing an overview for the development of the whole College to the Panel in due course

To receive a presentation on a Draft Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing which has recently been published by Leeds City Council for public consultation. Members’ comments are sought as part of the consultation process. This matter was deferred from the previous Panel meeting

(Report attached)

Members received a report and presentation on the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as part of the consultation process for the document. A copy of the draft SPD had previously been sent to all Councillors, with further copies being available at the meeting

Officers from the Planning Policy Section, City Development, and the Affordable Housing Team, Environment and Neighbourhoods outlined the main proposals in the plan

Once the public consultation was complete and evaluated, the draft SPD would replace the existing .This item had been deferred from the previous meeting.

Officers highlighted the proposals in the document as:

• Reduction of the housing areas from 5 areas to 3 across the city with the following requirements:
• • City Centre = 15% affordable housing
  • Inner Area = 25%
  • Outer Housing Zone = 35%
• reduction of the threshold from 15 for provision of affordable housing to all residential developments of 5 or more units
• a change in the % split to 70% intermediate and 30% social rented
• to retain the provision of affordable housing in a pro-rata mix
• to retain the appearance and location of affordable housing throughout a development as being no different from housing at market value and be suitably integrated
• to seek to ensure that provision of affordable housing should generally be on-site.
• To ensure that provision of a commuted sum (instead of affordable housing on site) should not be financially advantageous to a developer. Officers reported that consideration was being given to develop a strategic plan for the spending of commuted sums

The Panel discussed the following issues:

• Off site provision – suggestion that commuted sums could be utilised to purchase and refurbish former rented properties in the Headingley/Kirkstall/Burley areas to provide affordable family sized homes.
• Impact of the market decline – noted that any developer not proposing to provide the required affordable housing is required to provide a financial viability statement to support their case, however at the point of land purchase a developer is aware of the Section 106 requirements
• Student cluster flats – seek to ensure that developers of cluster flats also provide commuted sum
• Piecemeal developments – concern that small developments would be proposed to avoid affordable housing provision, possibly resulting in phased and uneven development of a site

(Councillors Andrew, Marjoram and Leadley withdrew from the meeting at this point)

In response it was noted

• Legal services investigating what could be done regarding the C3 class for dwellings in respect of student cluster flats
• Representations had been received some student representative groups, as a result a separate financial viability study on provision of student housing would be required
• Representations had been received regarding the reduction of the threshold to 5 dwellings

(Councillor Coulson withdrew from the meeting at this point)

The Chair thanked officers for the presentation and noted that Panel Members had already highlighted financial viability as a training issue

RESOLVED - To note the comments of the Panel regarding the contents of the Draft SPD and to note these would be fed into the consultation process

RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 18^th December 2008 at 1.30pm