- Attendance Details
- Agenda Frontsheet PDF 168 KB
- Agenda reports pack PDF 2 MB
- LATE ITEM 09/00570/FU 96 Cardigan Road, Headingley PDF 21 KB
- Printed minutes PDF 96 KB
Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds
Contact: Helen Gray 2474355Items No. Item
Chairs Opening Remarks
The Chair welcomed all present to the meeting and introduced Mr S Butler as the new Lead Officer for Panel, and welcomed Mr M Sellens in his new role as Head of Planning Services
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 admitted one formal late item for consideration by the Panel as follows:
Application 09/00570/FU – remove Condition 13 (green space condition) of Application No. 26/151/04/FU for 16 proposed flats to be affordable at 96 Cardigan Road Headingley (minute 150 refers). The relevant Executive Board report of 13 February 2009 was included within the documentation in accordance with the Executive Board resolution.
Additional documentation was also submitted at the meeting as follows:
Minute 147 – Summercross
- Correspondence from Walker Morris solicitors including a Commercial Viability Resume on behalf of the applicant
- Correspondence from Westward Care
- Letter to Members and flyer from Chair of Save Our Summercross Group
- Correspondence from the Co-ordinator Otley Pub Club
- Letter from Mr G Mulholland MP and documentation including case studies, review of the officer report and e-mail from former pub landlord
Minute 148 – South Close
- Photographs submitted by the objectors
- Large site plan
- Copies of correspondence between LCC drainage and planning officers
Minute 150 – Arndale Centre
- Correspondence to Panel Members from Market Town Taverns plc.
Declarations of Interest
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 S Andrew - Application 08/06944/FU Leeds Bradford Airport Position Statement – declared a personal interest as a local authority appointed member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority (WYITA) Transport Steering Group as METRO had commented on the proposals (minute 151 refers)
Councillor C Campbell – Application 08/06122/FU redevelopment of former Summercross Hotel, Otley – declared both personal and prejudicial interests as a member of CAMRA and Otley Town Council. Both organisations had submitted objections to the proposals (minute 147 refers)
Councillor C Campbell – Application 08/06944/FU Leeds Bradford Airport Position Statement – declared a personal interest as a local authority appointed member of WYITA as METRO had commented on the proposals (minute 151 refers)
Councillor C Campbell - Application 08/05827/FU extension to existing bar within Arndale Centre, Headingley – declared a personal interest as a Member of CAMRA (minute 150 refers)
Councillor B Chastney – Application 08/06122/FU redevelopment of former Summercross Hotel, Otley – declared a personal interest as a former employee of Mr G Mulholland MP who attended this meeting to raise objection to the scheme. Councillor Chastney stated that although he had been aware of the scheme he had not previously expressed an opinion. (minute 147 refers)
Councillors B Chastney & J Matthews – Application 08/05827/FU extension to existing bar within Arndale Centre, Headingley – declared personal interests as patrons of the premises (minute 150 refers)
Minutes PDF 97 KB
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting held 22nd January 2009 as a correct record
RESOLVED – That, subject to an amendment to minute 126 to read Honorary Alderman Minkin, the minutes of the meeting held 22nd January 2009 be agreed as a correct record
Election of the Chair
Councillor Campbell having earlier declared a prejudicial interest in the following matter on the agenda indicated his intention to vacate the Chair and withdraw from the meeting during deliberations. He invited Councillor T Leadley to Chair the meeting and with the support of all Members present the Panel
RESOLVED – That Councillor Leadley Chair the meeting
Councillor Campbell withdrew from the meeting. Councillor Leadley took the Chair.
Application 08/06122/FU - Change of use of former Public House involving alterations and part 2 storey, part 3 storey extension to form 46 bed Residential Care Home at former Summercross Hotel, Cross Green, Otley PDF 413 KB
To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on redevelopment proposals for the former Summercross Hotel, Otley. This matter was deferred from the meeting held 22 January 2009
Further to minute 136 of the meeting held 22nd January 2009 when Members deferred consideration of the application in response to concerns that not all residents who had made a representation had been notified of the meeting, the Panel considered the application for the redevelopment of the former Summercross Hotel and public house, Otley
Members of the Panel had visited the site prior to the January Panel meeting. Site plans; photographs and architects drawings were displayed at the meeting.
(Councillor Taggart joined the meeting at this point)
Officers reported receipt of 31 letters of support since the report was written. Additionally 5 letters of objection had been submitted. Officers reported the concerns expressed, particularly over the accuracy of the drawings. Officers also noted receipt of a late submission from Mr G Mulholland MP tabled at the meeting which made reference to appeals to the Planning Inspectorate regarding public house redevelopments.
The Panel heard representation on behalf of objectors from Mr G Mulholland MP who raised concern over the processing of the application and the manner in which the developers had approached the proposals. Members also heard from Mr J Buck a local resident who objected to the scheme and highlighted its former role as a community pub.
The Panel then heard from Mr S Sadler, agent for the applicant who reiterated the findings of an independent assessment on the commercial viability of the pub and from Mr D Klemm a local resident who expressed his support for the scheme which he felt would not detract from the Conservation Area.
The Panel discussed the following:
- accuracy of the scale drawings, noting the existing Summercross building would be retained and would be used as reference point for the new build elements during the construction phase with regards to heights
- noted the assurances from officers that the measurements had been checked since the query over accuracy
- noted the contents of the written submissions tabled by “Save Our Summercross” and Mr G Mulholland MP
- quality of the drawings presented
- commented that this location on the edge of the greenspace would provide a suitable setting for the residents of the care home
Members acknowledged the divided opinion within the locality and expressed regret over the decline of the pub trade. The Panel overall however welcomed what they felt was an appropriate re-use of the site of good design and noted the appeal case studies cited did not correlate exactly to this particular application.
RESOLVED –That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for final approval subject to the conditions specified within the report and the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to include the following obligations:
- £10,000.00 for provision of a bus stop
- £2,500.00 for monitoring fee for travel plan
- Employment opportunities for local people during construction phase and when the care home is in operation
Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillors Chastney and Matthews required it to be recorded that they voted against this matter
Councillor Campbell resumed his place as Chair and Councillor Leadley resumed his place in the meeting
(Councillor Taggart withdrew from the meeting)
To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking to address the drainage issues and siting of a detached house which gained permission on appeal
Members of the Panel had visited the site prior to the meeting. The Panel considered proposals to amend the siting of, and to address drainage issues related to, an existing permission for a five bedroom detached house at South Close, Guiseley. The original application 28/229/05/FU had attracted local opposition and was refused, however permission was granted by the Inspector on appeal. Plans and photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting with architect’s drawings of the proposals.
A plan showing three proposed sitings for the dwelling was displayed – the position as approved by the Inspector, the position the applicant believed to be agreed and a “compromise” location as negotiated between officers and the applicant.
Officers reported on the drainage issues associated with the site and the findings of LCC Drainage Officers who concluded that land drainage and soakaway issues could be addressed. The comments of the Becks Inspector who expressed concern over the off-site flow from the site were also reported.
The Panel heard representation from Mr C Wilks, a local resident, objecting to the scheme who expressed concern about drainage, the works already undertaken on site and sought assurance that future works would be monitored and that conditions imposed by the Inspector would be carried over to this application should it be granted. Members then heard representation from Mr M Scratchard, agent for the applicant; and Mr A King a drainage contractor employed by the applicant in response. It was noted the applicant would control garden drainage through a soakaway and replace land drains within the site to ensure surface water passed through the site as legally required.
The Panel discussed the following issues:
- land drainage generally in the Tranmere Park locality including the condition of the land drains on adjacent land and their ability to function
- noted the proposed works would address drainage on this site only, but the applicant would not be able to address problems elsewhere
- noted the comments of LCC Drainage Officers contained in documents tabled at the meeting by the objectors
- the compromise siting for the dwelling and its impact on the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overlooking and appearance in the street scene
Members expressed a preference for the dwelling to be sited as per the Inspectors decision and felt there was no strong reason to vary the siting. The Panel also felt that officers should be afforded the time to review the drainage issues with the applicant.
RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred to allow time for all drainage issues to be assessed and Drainage Officers be requested to attend the next meeting when the application will be presented for determination
To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals to develop 14 flats with associated car parking on a site at Broad Lane/Outgang Lane, Bramley
Members of the Panel visited the site prior to the meeting. Site plans and architects drawings of the proposals were displayed at the meeting. Officers outlined the main issues to considers being the principle of the development, massing & design and distances
The Panel heard representation from Mr D Broomhead a local resident who raised issues relating to distances, elevations and site levels.
(Councillor Taggart resumed his seat in the meeting)
Members discussed the following matters:
- proposed height of the block compared to that of the existing church building and in relation to the surrounding dwellings
- lack of cross sections provided for reference to show the relationship between the proposals and existing properties on Raynville Close
- distances between the secondary rear bedroom windows of the new block and the windows of the existing dwellings
- safety issues relating to the access to the site and its’ proximity to the nearby school
- highway treatment to extend the restriction on Outgang Lane
- provision of car parking on site and possibility of overflow on-street car parking in the adjacent streets
RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting when the presentation will include information on site levels and to allow time for officers to report back on the issue of parking restrictions
To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on development proposals for a vacant unit within the Arndale Centre, Headingley
The Panel considered proposals for the change of use of a vacant shop unit and alteration to existing bar within the Arndale Centre, Headingley to form an extension to the existing bar.
Officers highlighted the Council’s policy of restricting A4 uses in Headingley due to their impact on residents and the character of the area; however the premises at No.34 under the management of this applicant had operated without problem. Officers had sought to negotiate a legal agreement to restrict the permission to this applicant personally; however the applicant was not willing to accept this restriction and officers had therefore recommended the application be refused in line with Council policy.
Officers reported the content of a letter of support submitted by Mr G Mulholland MP which had been omitted from the report. The Panel heard representation from Mr I Fozzard the applicant and tenant who explained the landlord of Units 34 & 35 was unwilling to accept a covenant on No.35 as it would present difficulties in terms of ownership and one had not been required previously for No.34. Members went on to discuss the following:
- requirement for the Section 106 legal agreement to ensure the future operation of the premises to this operator
- supported the applicant in his proven management of the existing premises
- noted the support for the operator from local residents balanced against the need to protect the area from a proliferation of A4 uses
Officers clarified that the suggested legal agreement was intended to cover both units 34 and 35 and Members noted the applicant had not been aware of this during his consideration. The Panel noted the applicants offer to defer determination of the matter to allow time for him to further discuss the personal permission with the property owner.
RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred for one meeting to allow the applicant time to consider the implications of a personal permission in the Section 106 Agreement to cover both No. 34 and No. 35 Arndale Centre
Position Statement - Application 08/06944/FU - Two Storey Extension to main Airport Terminal Building to provide new Entrance, improved internal facilities and associated landscaping works to the Terminal Building Forecourt at Leeds and Bradford Airport, Whitehouse Lane, Yeadon, Leeds LS19 7TU PDF 124 KB
To receive a position statement on proposals to redevelop the main airport terminal at Leeds Bradford International Airport
Some Members of the Panel had recently attended an informal site visit to the Airport and received a presentation by the architects on the overall proposals for the redevelopment of the Airport.
The Panel now considered the current position with regards to proposals to redevelop the main Airport terminal building and provide associated highways and landscaping works. The report highlighted design and transport issues as particular elements for consideration. Plans and architects drawings of the proposals along with aerial photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting.
Officers reported receipt of 15 further letters of objection from local residents raising concern over climate change matters; expected growth of the Airport, public consultation so far and adverse impact of the local economy and tourism. A letter had also just been received from Friends of the Earth which officers had not had time to evaluate yet.
Members considered the following matters in particular:
- Panel noted the redevelopment sought to address problems currently experienced on site and generally accepted the principle of the replacement building
- Members noted the amended design and broadly welcomed the inclusion of more glazing and colour. Panel however noted the comment that as the terminal building still appeared box-like; the applicants could consider a sweeping curve to the fascia to reflect the shape of the landscaping.
- Officers reported the design would largely be governed by the functionality of the building and would have to take into account the 30m counter-terrorism exclusion zone to the entrance. Members commented that some highways works had already been undertaken to the front of the terminal and these had impacted on the proposed design.
- Members commented on the distance between the passenger drop off/pick up zone and the terminal entrance and suggested covered walkways be incorporated.
- The Panel welcomed the improvements made so far but felt that it could be revised to further articulate the design and requested that future presentations include reference to phase 2 of the overall redevelopment to provide a holistic view of the gradual expansion of the airport
- Noted transport assessments had been submitted and the local highway network was being reviewed in terms of access to the airport.
- Members noted the comments of the Highways Officer emphasising this redevelopment would not entail additional car parking spaces, but that the Transport Assessment would be reviewed having regard to the anticipated increase in passenger numbers from 2.9 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 2008 to 5 mppa by 2012
- Members considered that public transport access to the airport was crucial and felt that providers must be encouraged to advertise the existing shuttle services to ensure their use.
- The creation of a new rail link was also discussed.
RESOLVED – That the position statement and the comments of the Panel be noted
To consider the late report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposals to remove Condition No. 13 relating to the green space contribution from Application 26/151/04/FU for 16 proposed affordable flats at 96 Cardigan Road, Headingley. The report addresses the decision of the Executive Board taken on 13th February 2009 with regards to greenspace contributions on schemes providing 100% affordable housing
The Chief Planning Officer submitted a late report on an application to remove condition 13 of extant permission 26/151/04/FU relating to the green space contribution attached to the scheme for the provision of 16 affordable flats. Members had received a copy of the report prior to the meeting and additional copies were available at the meeting.
Executive Board at its meeting on 13 February 2009 considered a joint report by the Director of Environment & Neighbourhoods and the Director of City Development on proposals to waiver planning contributions for greenspace on schemes below 50 units which were funded via the 2008/2011 HCA National Affordable Housing Programme and which would provide 100% affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s priorities.
Executive Board resolved to waive the usual contribution requested for greenspace on such schemes subject to the individual merits of each scheme being given due consideration. This policy will be reviewed in 12 months time. Executive Board also referred the matter to all Plans Panels for information.
Arising from this decision, this application was presented to Members for determination. Although it was noted the policy would mainly apply to LCC owned sites, it may equally apply to other sites; including this one and the applicants had confirmed the scheme had achieved grant funding through the HCA Programme. The report was presented as a late item because one of the conditions of the grant was to commence works on site by 16 March 2009 which was prior to the next Panel meeting. Members noted the period for advertisement of the application had not yet expired.
Officers reported the scheme would entail the redevelopment of the “villa” within the existing green setting which would preserve the building and the character of the Conservation Area; which should be balanced against the loss of approximately £7000 in greenspace contribution (2005 prices) if this application was rejected.
One further letter of objection had been received expressing concern over the lack of gardens in the area. The Panel considered the particular merits of this scheme although did note the concern expressed about the setting of precedence
a) That determination of Application 09/00570/FU be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for final approval subject to the specified conditions contained within the report (which are the planning conditions attached to planning permission 26/151/04/FU) with Condition No.13 (green space contribution) omitted; and subject to a an appropriate legal mechanism to ensure that the scheme is 100% Affordable (completion of a legal agreement or further condition) and until the end of the advertisement period and subject to no adverse representations being received raising relevant issues not addressed in the report
b) To note the contents of the report in relation to the decision of the Executive Board taken on 13th February 2009
Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16:5 Councillor Leadley required it to be recorded that he voted against this matter
Date and Time of Next Meeting
RESOLVED - To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 19th March 2009 at 1.30 pm