Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the first Plans Panel City Centre meeting of the new municipal year and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

To declare any personal/prejudicial interests 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:

  Application 08/05307/FU – 14 – 28 The Calls LS2:

  Councillor Latty declared a personal interest as a British Waterways License Holder as British Waterways had commented on the proposals (minute 6 refers)

  Councillor Monaghan declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust which had commented on the proposals (minute 6 refers)

  Councillor Campbell declared a personal interest as Metro had commented on the proposals and at the time the comments were made he would have been a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority (minute 6 refers)

  Application 09/03230/FU – St Peter’s Church and House, Chantrell House Leeds Parish Church LS2:

  Councillors Campbell, Nash and Selby declared personal interests through being members of English Heritage which had commented on the proposals (minute 7 refers).  Councillor Nash stated that she wished to disassociate herself with the comments made by English Heritage

  Councillor Monaghan declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust which had commented on the proposals (minute 7 refers)

  Application 10/00923/OT – Land bounded by Sweet Street, Meadow Road, Jack Lane, Bowling Green Terrace and Trent Street LS11 – Position statement:

  Councillor Campbell declared personal interests through being a member of West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority at the time Metro had commented on the proposals and as a member of Leeds Bradford Airport Consultative Committee has LBIA had commented on the proposals (minute 8 refers)

  Councillor Monaghan declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust which had commented on the proposals (minute 8 refers)

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M Hamilton who was substituted for by Councillor J Matthews; Councillor S Hamilton who was substituted for by Councillor R Grahame; Councillor G Harper and Councillor A Carter

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 26^th May 2010

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 26^th May 2010 be approved

  The Head of Planning Services stated that the two applications which were for determination at the meeting had been considered previously by Panel.  Whilst there had been some changes in membership, this did not necessarily disbar new Members from taking a decision of these applications.   The Panel’s Legal adviser referred to paragraph 12.1 of the Council’s Code of Practice for the Determination of Planning Matters which stated that it was for each Member to consider if they were fully appraised of all the facts and relevant information necessary to properly reach a decision.   It was noted that site visits to the two sites had taken place prior to the meeting which had been attended by all of the Panel

Further to minute 52 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 3^rd December 2009 to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for alterations and extension to form offices and A3/A4 bar restaurant development and erection of 5 storey office block with basement car parking and public landscaped area and Conservation Area Application 08/05309/CA for demolition of the Mission Hut and 28 The Calls Leeds

(report attached)

  Further to minute 52 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 3^rd December 2009 where Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a mixed use, riverside development at 14-28 The Calls, Members considered a revised application

  Plans, photographs, graphics and a sample board were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which all Members had attended

  Officers presented the report and stated that this brownfield site was  the last major, undeveloped riverside site in the city centre  and comprised buildings which were largely vacant and inefficiently used.  It was noted that there was an extant permission on the site for a mixed-use residential, office and A3 development which had been granted in 2007

  Details of the planning history of the site were provided as were details of the revisions which had been made to the scheme following Members’ previous comments, these being:

·  a further reduction in the projection of the Atkinson building

·  alterations to the glazing and louvres on the elevation alongside 32 The Calls to create a more solid format with a design which echoed that of the Warehouse Hill building

·  replacement of the blue brick with a rustic red/blue brick

·  refinement of the fenestration on the Warehouse Hill building

·  the introduction of railings along the river’s edge

Members were informed of a factual error in the report which should

state the provision of 5, not 3, disabled parking spaces in the basement car park

  In respect of a public transport contribution, Members were informed that a sum of £115,627 would be provided and that the S106 agreement was being drafted for this

  Members were asked to approve application 08/05307/FU in principle; defer and delegate final approval to the Chief Planning Officer and to approve the Conservation Area application

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the height of the buildings and concerns that the Warehouse Hill building was overdominant and did not refer to surrounding buildings

·  whether the development was likely to proceed

·  the need for further explanation for the condition in respect of a S106 agreement which had not been completed within 3 months of the grant of planning permission

·  that this was an historic area and whether a museum would be included to display artefacts found in the area

·  that the waterfront should be more widely used than a spill out area for bars and restaurants and that to maximise the number of people who would use the site, other recreational uses ie for boating, including mooring of boats, fishing and some water sports should be considered

·  that the inclusion of railings along the riverside was welcomed in view of the recent tragedies which had occurred

·  the need for increased soft landscaping which could include some treatment to the blank walls

·  the need to include species of trees which were suitable in this location

·  the need for further information on the pyramid area in the corner of the site

·  concerns whether this would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Further to minute 67 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 4^th March 2010 where Panel considered a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use including refurbishment and extensions to 2 church buildings with 2 flats, to form offices and 18 flats and erect part 3 part 4 storey block comprising office and 32 flats with car parking and 09/03280/CA – Conservation Area application to demolish office and 09/033971/LI – Listed Building application for alterations for replacement gate in boundary wall

(report attached)

  Further to minute 67 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 4^th March 2010 where Members considered a position statement for the redevelopment of St Peter’s Hall and House and Chantrell House, Leeds Parish Church, Kirkgate, the Panel considered the formal applications

  Plans, drawings, graphics, photographs and a model were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which all of the Panel Members had attended

  Officers presented the report and highlighted the revisions made to the scheme in view of Members’ comments on the position statement by showing comparative images

  Members were informed of the following revisions:

·  that the height of the proposals had been reduced

·  that there would be  one less flat within the scheme

·  the roof design had been altered and now pitched roofs would be provided

·  the previously glazed vertical slots indicating the locations of staircases would be now be clad in stone

·  realignment of the windows to provide a consistent approach across all three buildings and alterations to window treatments to create shadow and relief on the elevations

Members were informed that the scheme should provide affordable

housing of 7 units but that a financial appraisal had been submitted requesting affordable housing to be restricted to 4 units in Chantrell House, with the income generated from the units in St Peter’s Hall and House to be used to fund maintenance works to the adjacent Grade I listed Leeds Parish Church

  Officers sought Panel’s approval in principle to the scheme and requested final approval to be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the design details of the recesses and the absence of chimneys on Chantrell House

·  the lack of windows on the gable wall of the extension of St Peter’s Hall

·  that some of the best features would be covered up on St Peter’s Hall, which albeit some of the window frames were in poor condition, created an important view down The Calls

·  that the extension to St Peter’s Hall had tried, unsuccessfully, to imitate the adjacent Victorian building and that it was not of a high enough quality given its surroundings and proximity to a Grade I Listed church

·  that as an entrance into a precinct it was unattractive

·  that although improvements had been made to the scheme it was still not good enough, particularly the blocking off of the view of the Parish Church from Maud Street

·  concerns about the design of Chantrell House; that the parapet should be in stone as opposed to stone and brick; that more glazing could be introduced on the elevations and concerns at the design of this building adjacent to the Parish Church

·  that what was being shown was a comparison with an earlier scheme; that the current scheme should be considered in isolation and the view that this scheme was not good enough

·  that if the intention was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a position statement of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline planning application for redevelopment of land at Meadow Road for uses within the following classes B1, D2, C1, C3 (up to 296 residential units) and ancillary A1, A3, A4 and A5 uses, including works for formation of site access roads

(report attached)

  (Prior to considering this matter, Councillor Blackburn left the meeting)

  Plans, photographs, drawings and precedent images were displayed at the meeting

  Members considered a position statement by the Chief Planning Officer setting out the latest proposals for a major mixed-use development on the site known as ‘City One’ at Sweet Street and Meadow Road.  Members noted that the site had benefited from previous major outline consents in 2004 and 2006 so the principle of a major development on this site had been established

  When the outline application was submitted, approval would be sought only for the principle of development and access

  Details of the parameters for the site layout and building heights were provided with Members being informed that there was flexibility within the site as to where the different uses would be located

  In respect of highways issues, the Panel’s Highways representative stated that the scheme would contain a large amount of car parking and would generate a significant amount of movement, however the aim was to retain the central area free of vehicles by locating an area of public open space at the heart of the development and enabling pedestrian movement around the site

  The intention was to create a few vehicular access points, including extending Bowling Green Terrace to Sweet Street

  The site would provide 1500 car parking spaces, with 1100 in the proposed multi-storey car park and 400 basement parking spaces underneath the various blocks

  It was felt that there were a number of choices of exit route which would help to spread the load on the highway network.  Furthermore several improvements were proposed which would also assist in this, these being the widening of Meadow Road to provide 3 full width lanes of traffic; widening of the junction at Jack Lane and improvements to the slip road off the motorway, although traffic modelling was still being undertaken on these proposals

  As the previous scheme had included a casino on the site which would have generated a greater amount of traffic later on in the day, the traffic generated by the proposed development would occur more at peak times and a strong travel plan would be required.  Increased pedestrian connectivity would be provided.  Improvements being considered included a zebra crossing at the mini roundabout on Sweet Street; possible improvements to the crossing at Manor Road and provision of two central refuges at Jack Lane

  Increased cycling facilities were being considered as the applicant had offered to widen the footway along the Meadow Road frontage to provide a segregated cycle track and footway and to provide a Toucan crossing across the mouth of Jack Lane; also cycle routes would be developed into the site

  Members were informed that a range of supporting plans and documents had been submitted; that there would be 8 different areas of green space on the site equating to 29.1% public open space and it was felt that the policy requirements would be met

  The development would be phased with the influencing factor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Thursday 22^nd July 2010 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 22^nd July 2010 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds