Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

  RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following part of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as designated as follows:

  The appendix to the main report referred to in minute 172 under Schedule 12 Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the affairs of the applicant.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case, maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

  The Chair admitted one late item of business to the agenda (minute 170 refers).  The report was not available at the time the agenda was despatched and required urgent consideration as the report outlined changes to national planning legislation, some of which came into effect on 15^th April 2015, which Members would need to have regard to

  The Panel was also in receipt of supplementary information – this being the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 26^th March 2015 and a copy of the draft Revocation Order in respect of the former Yorkshire Chemicals site (minutes 168 and 171 refer)

  Copies of all three of these documents had been circulated in advance of the meeting and had been published on the Council’s website

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

  There were no declarations of disclosable interest 

 Councillor P Gruen brought to the Panel’s attention that he was a Director of the Ruth Gorse Academy Trust and that he had declared this at all Board meetings and had not taken part in discussions relating to the proposed new Academy, in order that he could fully participate in the planning discussions (minute 174 refers)

  Councillor S Hamilton also brought to the Panel’s attention that she was a Governor at Hillcrest Primary Academy (minute 174 refers)

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Procter, with Councillor Anderson attending in her place

To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meetings held on 10^th March and 26^th March 2015

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meetings held on 5^th March 2015 and  26^th March 2015 be approved

  With reference to minute 149 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 5^th March 2015, relating to application 12/02571/OT – land between Wetherby Road, Skeltons Land and York Road LS14, Officers were asked whether the applicant for the major, residential-led development known as the Northern Quadrant of the East Leeds Extension, had completed the S106 Agreement on the terms sought by Members in relation to the level of affordable housing provision.  The Head of Planning Services advised that this had not been signed and that the application would be considered under CIL, with negotiations continuing on affordable housing levels, with a further report being brought to Panel in due course, following discussions with Ward Members

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the changes to national planning legislation which have been introduced by the Secretary of State Communities and Local Government

(report attached)

  The Head of Planning Services presented a report which outlined the changes to national planning legislation which had been made by the Secretary of State Communities and Local Government and been announced shortly before the end of the Parliamentary session

  The main areas affected by the changes were outlined, with these being:

·  Sustainable urban drainage

·  Permitted Development and Use Classes

·  Development Management Procedure Order

·  Housing Standards

·  National Planning Policy Guidance

Members discussed the report, with the main issues being raised

relating to:

·  the nature of the changes; the lack of consultation and the need for a written response to be sent to the Secretary of State on these changes in due course

·  the implications of the changes, particularly to the Use Class Order and how this could affect areas of the city

·  the housing standards; the size of units and the process for adopting these standards

·  the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use and how Permitted Development rights related to such conversions

·  the requirement for applications for a betting shop or pay day loan shop to require planning permission, which was supported and welcomed by Panel

·  the need for these issues to be covered further in a future training session for Members

RESOLVED -  To note the contents of the report and the comments

now made

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding the revocation of hazardous substance consents (Pursuant to 13/05566/FU).

  Further to minute 189 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 8^th May 2014, where Panel resolved to defer and delegate approval of a residential development on the former Yorkshire Chemicals Site, Otter Island, Members considered a report seeking approval to pursue a Revocation Order to revoke hazardous substance consents as this did not form part of the Council’s scheme of delegation to the Chief Planning Officer

  The Deputy Area Planning Manager informed Members that the former use of the site ceased many years ago but that the hazardous substance consents remained and that agreement was sought to the formal process to remove these consents for the whole site

  An error on the draft consent order which referred to Calverley Lane Horsforth, was corrected

  Members were informed that the applicant was willing to work with the Council on this and would indemnify the Council’s costs

  RESOLVED -  To grant authority to pursue a Revocation Order under Section 14(1) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (as amended) for all extant hazardous substance consents at the former Yorkshire Chemicals site Kirkstall Road Leeds

To receive and consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a residential development of 272 houses with associated roads and infrastructure

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day which had included viewing a site at Bierley in Bradford, which had been developed by the same applicant

  Officers presented a report which set out the current position in respect of an application for a major residential scheme on a large, greenfield site, situated on the edge of Leeds.    Members were informed that the site had been allocated for employment land since 1996 but in the Site Allocation Plan, Issues and Options, housing use was proposed

  Details of the housing types were outlined, with concerns being expressed about some of the design elements of these

  A landscaped buffer was included in the scheme, however this was partly on land not within the applicant’s ownership and it was the view of Officers that such a buffer should be sited on land owned by the applicant

  In terms of planning contributions, no affordable housing was being proposed and the extent of the greenspace contribution offered was 36% of that required by policy.  A possible method of securing some funds towards affordable housing and additional greenspace on the site was through a S106 Agreement whereby if the houses sold for higher than was in the submitted financial viability assessment, this excess could be clawed back and used for these purposes

  At this point the public were asked to withdraw from the meeting to enable the Panel to consider the financial viability information in private

  The Panel considered the information in the exempt appendix, with the main issues raised relating to:

·  land values

·  projected sale price for the houses

·  profit levels

·  likely build costs and concerns about the quality of the houses

·  the definition of an affordable home

Following these discussions, the Chair invited the public to resume

their seats in the meeting

Members discussed the proposals with concerns being raised about the absence of affordable housing provision; the low level of greenspace being proposed; the need for the buffer to be on land in the applicant’s ownership; that the former railway land should be included so as not to leave an undevelopable area; design issues which included poor fencing; the extent of tarmac; size of garages; siting of car parking and the need for useable areas of greenspace

  In respect of education and recreation contributions, Officers were asked to note the comments of Bradford Council, as set out in the submitted report and to consider these when dealing with residential applications in areas such as Menston

  In relation to the specific questions posed to Members in the submitted report, the following responses were provided

·  that Members support the principle of residential development

·  that Members did not agree that the benefits of the scheme outweighed concerns which related to the layout and design of the scheme

·  that Members did not accept the nil provision of affordable housing on the site.  In respect of a S106 including affordable housing only if the properties sold  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a position statement/pre-application presentation on the progress of the Kirkstall Forge Development in accordance with outline planning permission 11/01400/EXT for a mixed use development comprising residential, offices, leisure, hotel, retail & bar/restaurants including access, site remediation, construction of bridges and river works, car parking and landscaping

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

  Photographs, drawings and precedent images were displayed at the meeting 

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the progress of the Kirkstall Forge development in accordance with the outline planning permission 11/01400/EXT for a major mixed-use development to include residential, commercial, retail and leisure uses together with site remediation; construction of bridges, river works, parking and landscaping

Officers presented the report; outlined the historic relevance of the site and commended the cohesive way in which the site was being brought forward, with the development being likened potentially to Saltaire, in that the facilities provided on the site would be used by the people who lived there

The Panel then received a presentation on the current position on behalf of the architects involved

  Members were provided with details of the scheme which included:

·  connectivity of the site and that a key link would be the new bridge link to the new railway station – referred to as ‘the stitch’

·  the provision of two key gateways, one being Forge square and the other being the water gardens

·  the creation of a new boulevard which would be south facing to the River Aire and a series of perpendicular routes down to the river

·  that a one form entry primary school at the western end of the site was being considered

·  building heights, these being mainly 6 storeys with some 7 storey buildings on the south side; increased height on the area referred to as the ‘nose cone’ and lower heights to the north, of 3 – 4 storeys for the residential dwellings

·  that a design guide had been drawn up which included ten distinct character areas

·  site ‘A’, located at the end of the island and that two blocks of bespoke, private rented accommodation was proposed of around 200 units in total (with around 40 private for sale units), all of which would provide good views to the valley and would benefit from generous amenity space, with good levels of sun light through the day and late evening

·  that to generate a sense of community, there would be one entrance per residential block with a café situated at the base of one of the blocks

·  proposed materials would comprise brick, masonry and glazing for the residential elements with metal in bronze/gold tones being considered for the commercial unit, together with brick work

·  site ‘B’ which would be the office block; that this was in a key location, directly connected to the railway station; it would attract inward investment to Kirkstall Forge; would provide commercial accommodation to a BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard and would take advantage of the views which would be an additional attraction

·  detailed design issues relating to the fenestration to the commercial block and how this related to some of the historic mill buildings

·  that the proposed houses on the site would use the ideas of courts, terraces and roof gardens, together with integrated parking, vibrant use of streets and landscaping, with a new housing typology  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application for a proposed school.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

  Plans and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on pre-application proposals for the Ruth Gorse Academy, a new academy for Leeds, to be sited on land at Black Bull Street Hunslet.  The Panel also received a presentation from the Principal of the Academy and representatives of the development team

  Details of the proposals were outlined to Members, with these including:

·  the ethos of the academy

·  pupil numbers; that these would rise progressively on the Morley Academy site before transferring to the Black Bull site, with eventually 1580 students being on roll there

·  the areas of Leeds the academy would serve

·  the level of support locally and nationally for new schools

·  details of the consultation process

·  the key constraints close to the site, in terms of noise and pollution from Black Bull Street

·  the design of the building, with the provision of a community hub which would include the indoor sports provision, with the main teaching areas being located in two wings leading off from the hub

·  that a strong edge to Black Bull Street would be created

·  that the school would present a façade to the street and that the main entrance would be off Black Bull Street

·  that the car parking area would be to the north of the site as would the external access and drop off point

·  the proposed materials would be red brick and slate grey cladding to the hub

·  in terms of scale and massing, it was felt that the four storey humanities block related to the new buildings which were sited on Chadwick Street

·  the site was accessible; in easy walking distance of the city centre and that a NGT stop was proposed close by

·  discussions were continuing with Highways about how to enhance the walking routes; that an additional pedestrian crossing was likely to be included and that Black Bull Street would be narrowed to two lanes of traffic

·  that based on data for 2014/2015, the majority of the student cohort would be from South Leeds and that a robust Travel Plan would be developed to address issues arising from these school journeys

·  that 30 car parking spaces would be provided on site, with these being allocated to those who most needed them.  A staff car sharing scheme would also be encouraged

·  the aim was to submit the planning application by 24^th April 2015, to enable construction to commence in July 2015 and the academy to be open in September 2016

The Panel discussed the proposals and commented on the following

matters:

·  the length of time a new high school for South Leeds had been discussed

·  the need for a clear mechanism for community use of the facilities to be established

·  the need to balance the safeguarding of pupils with  providing connectivity through the site, possibly achievable through the proposed car park

·  the challenging timescales being proposed and that Panel,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regard a pre-application presentation for a proposed residential development.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

  Plans, graphics, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out pre-application proposals for a residential scheme at Holbeck Urban Village (HUV)

Officers outlined the background to the proposals and informed Members that Igloo Regeneration, the proposed developer, had a track record of providing highly sustainable developments and creating vibrant communities.  It was noted that Igloo owned and had developed the Round Foundry and Temple Works, with the subject site being the last element of the  long-term plan for this unique area

The Panel then received a presentation on the proposals from the developer’s agent, with information being provided on:

·  layout – that the site provided four active frontages, each one facing a different area; that the central area provided the undercroft car park which would be accessed off David Street

·  building heights; that the existing building heights in HUV had been considered and respected in the proposals, with the town houses being three storey and the two apartment blocks being six storeys in height

·  amenity space and facilities – all houses would have a garden or terrace space, with each apartment having a balcony area; a ground floor commercial/retail unit was also proposed

·  design; lighting and materials

Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following

matters:

·  the size of the rooftop garden space.  It was clarified by the developer’s architect that this space was 12m wide

·  that the heritage references within the design of the scheme were welcomed

·  concerns about the massing of the apartments, particularly in relation to their dominance of the town houses

·  the size of the town houses; that these were not three storey, as a small basement area was being counted and that an extra storey should be provided on the houses but that the width of these should be narrower

·  the height of the apartment block, with mixed views about this

·  the nature of the tenure of the properties

In response to the specific issues raised in the submitted report, the

Panel provided the following comments:

·  that the principle of proposed uses were considered to be appropriate to Holbeck Urban Village and that Members were comfortable with a mixed use

·  to note there were mixed views on the emerging design and scale of the proposals

·  that Members were broadly satisfied with the emerging mix and standard of residential accommodation proposed

·  that the proposed car and cycle parking provision and access arrangements were acceptable, however the Panel noted the comments of the Transport Development Services Manager who raised concerns about the provision of two access points off David Street and that further work should be carried out to establish the possibility of not using David Street to directly access the car park

·  that the landscaped proposals were considered to be appropriate and to note that the elements of Wonderwood which required removal in order to develop the site, would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Thursday 14^th May 2015 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 14^th May 2015 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds