Plans to demolish temprary classrooms at a Leeds school and replace them with a permanent two-storey extension were approved in principle by councillors - despite concerns about parking problems in the community.
The plans, submitted by Education Leeds, will provide extra classroom space at Victoria Primary School near East End Park.
But councillors on yesterday's east plans panel had concerns that the proposals could increase existing problems with inconsiderate parents parking on nearby streets, including Ivy Avenue.
Conservative Wetherby councillor John Procter was unhappy with the proposals. He said:
"This is being pushed through by planning officers at breakneck speed. Frankly this is not a way to proceed with planning applications. All councillors want to see improvements in their areas, but we shouldn't feel we are pushing it through without looking at all the issues or at the expense of local people.
"There are clearly major issues surrounding parking and access, but these aren't dealt with in the officers' report in front of us."
Councilors said that they wanted to see a formal path established alongside playing field to provide a second way of accessing the school grounds for pupils. Part of the land is owned by Wade's Trust and negotiations would be needed to get the go-ahead.
Meeting chairman David Congreve added:
"Access to the school from Ivy Avenue is frankly one of the worst I have ever seen and a second access across the school field must be established. Highways access on Ivy Avenue should have been solved a long time ago."
Temple Newsam Labour councillor Mick Lyons added:
"Some of the problems there have to be seen to be believed. Local residents who complain about being blocked in have been verbally abused by parents in the past. We have to do something."
Councillors agreed to approve the plans in principle and defer and delegate final approval to the chief planning officer, subject to a number of conditions including a scheme to improve parking and pedestrian issues around the school, a fully detailed travel plan and the agreement of any traffic orders.
'Garden grab' planning application in Roundhay is rejected
Alterations to turn a detached house opposite Roundhay Park into six flats, including a two-storey extension in the garden, were rejected by councillors.
They said that the plans were an 'overdevelopment' of the site which would detract from the character and setting of the property and the appearance of the Roundhay conservation area.
Applicant Paul Mitchell spoke at the meeting in favour of the proposals. He said his plans weren't a 'garden-grab' scheme, that he was concerned about overdevelopment in the area and that the development would enhance the area and be sympathetic. He called on the councillors to defer their decision and to visit the Gledhow Lane site.
There were 13 letters of objection from local residents, three letters of support and opposition from two local councillors.
Councillors rejected the application by eight votes to one, Morley Borough Independent councillor Tom Leadley voting against refusal.
Other planning decisions made
Proposals to build five detached houses and three terrace houses at Village Farm, Harrogate Road, Harewood, were approved in principle by councillors, subject to conditions. Councillors felt it an improvement on a previous scheme approved for the greenfield site.
A green belt application to build three blocks of workshop units and seminar areas and a single block of 12 start-up units were unanimously approved subject to a raft of conditions by councillors. The application - at Holmecroft, York Road - was also referred to the Secretary of State as it is a major development in the green belt. The secretary will decide whether his department will look again at the application.
Long-running proposals for extensions at Hemingway's Cottage, The Green, Thorp Arch, were also considered by councillors, even though the applicant has already taken the application to an appeal to be heard by a government planning inspector on the grounds of non-determination. Councillors said they would have passed the plans, subject to a number of conditions which they will now press the planning inspector to introduce.
What do you think? Have your say in the comments section.
