Agenda and minutes

Prior to the meeting a site visit was held in respect of Minute 56 below and this was attended by Councillors D Blackburn, Campbell, Garthwaite, P Gruen, Leadley, Macniven, J McKenna and Walshaw.

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals against the refusal of inspection of documents.

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:-

There were no resolutions to exclude the public.

There were no late items.

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 interest.

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th August 2016.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on the 18^th August 2016 be approved as a correct record.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer setting out details of an application for a seven storey mixed use development (A3 B1 and D1) with associated landscape, public realm and public art, amendments to public highways. demolition of  building on Fenton Street, garages on Back Ibbetson Place and Lodge, land At Lodge Street,  Fenton Street And Back Ibbetson Place, Leeds, LS2 3ED.

Further to minute 139 of the meeting held on the 12^th May 2016 the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for a seven storey mixed use development (A3 B1 and D1) with associated landscape, public realm and public art, amendments to public highways, demolition of a building on Fenton Street and of garages on Back Ibbetson Place and Lodge Street,Land At Lodge Street,  Fenton Street And Back Ibbetson Place, Leeds ,LS2 3ED.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  Further to the report the applicant has proposed that in order to meet  the policy requirement of replacement tree planting at the ratio of 3 to 1, they intend to comply with this by taking opportunities for planting  at the site, the wider city centre campus and off-site at their Bodington Hall and Weetwood sites.

·  The type of artwork that would be commissioned for the site.

·  Public Realm work

·  The type of materials used for the development.

·  Training opportunities

·  The timeline for the development

In response to Members comments and questions the following was discussed;

·  Tree planting – due to the site restrictions it was noted that it may not be possible to achieve 3 to 1 replacement planting on the site  however alternative planting sites would be identified (the policy does not preclude planting elsewhere). Members felt that a site(s) nearer to the development site would be preferable to ensure that greenery remained near to the City Centre (to benefit from Carbon capture), sites such as Woodhouse Moor and Royal Park were felt to be better alternatives than the suggested Bodington Hall and Weetwood sites. Also the replacement planting should seek to re-create the amenity value and visual impact of the existing trees to be lost.

·  Members acknowledged that it was not the role of this Panel to be arbiters of taste for any artwork although they did feel it would be helpful to look at proposals to be able to offer comment if they felt that the suggested works were not appropriate for the area.

·  Members asked that the public realm area matched the ambition of the development.

·  Members felt that the sum set aside for the monitoring and evaluation of the travel plan was modest (£5,800), in discussing the matter officers acknowledged that the formulae used to arrive at a figure had not been revisited for a while and this would be done to ensure that appropriate costs are being recharged. 

·  Members expressed some disappointment that they were unable to look at the materials that were proposed for the development and Members asked that materials be provided where possible.

·  Members asked that in future reports to Panel should include details of the proposed travel plan measures and details of how any development would be able to provide local training and/or employment opportunities for local people where relevant.

·  Members noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer setting out details of an application for a proposal for student residential accommodation building comprising 87 Studio Flats, including ancillary communal facilities and retail unit, associated landscaping and car parking,46 Burley Street, Leeds, LS3 1LB.

Further to minute 32 of the meeting held on the 28^th July 2016 the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for proposals for student residential accommodation building comprising 87 Studio Flats, including ancillary communal facilities and retail unit, associated landscaping and car parking,46 Burley Street, Leeds, LS3 1LB.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application. Materials and panel boards were also circulated during discussion on the item.

 Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The revisions to the scheme since the meeting in July.

The Panel heard from Mr Hellawell a resident of the nearby Kendal Walk and from Mr McKinnon who highlighted the reasons for their objections to the development;

·  That height and massing issues had not being addressed

·  The proposed amendments were not material to the issues raised at the last meeting

·  The fact that Ward Members and Neighbourhood Groups had objected

·  They wanted the building reducing in height by 2 to 3 storeys.

·  The fact that the scheme was rejected in 2015 as being ‘too bulky’ and this development is only 2.9% smaller.

·  The revised design is more dense than the density of development indicated in the Site Allocation documents.

At the conclusion of the objections, a brief discussion followed on the content of the minutes from the July meeting and the Chair confirmed that the minutes from that meeting had been approved at the subsequent meeting of the City Plans Panel as an accurate record and they were now the formal decision record of that meeting. 

The Panel then heard from Matthew Stocks, Indigo Planning Consultants and Christian Sanders the Architect speaking on behalf of the development and setting out the altered Scheme as per the report before Members.

In response to Members comments and questions the following was discussed 

·  The purpose of the grass ramp to the side of the development – it was a retaining structure with no access.

·  Members appreciated that the sets at Rutland Mount were not to be removed and asked that the pavement in the area should be York Stone.

·  Members felt that the building was not ambitious for its location and did not enhance the area and they were disappointed by that and felt that some of the comments they had made previously had not been listened to.

·  Members still had concerns over the mass and design

·  Members felt that the building needed better articulation

·  Members also felt a lower development might be beneficial.

Following the discussion on this matter it was

RESOLVED – That this Application be deferred and that a workshop be organised with Plans Panel to discuss the design issues in more detail.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer setting out a Position Statement in respect of - 16/02757/OT - Outline Application for the erection of a Motorway Service Area including means of access and Facilities Building with viewing platform, up to 100 bedroom Hotel, Skelton Lake Visitor Centre,Fuel Filling Station, vehicle circulation and parking areas, landscaping and amenity spaces, pedestrian and cycle links, pumping station, retaining structures and associated mitigation, infrastructure and earthworks, Land Off Junction 45, M1 Motorway, Cross Green , Leeds.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline application for the erection of a Motorway Service Area including means of access and facilities building with viewing platform, up to 100 bedroom Hotel, Skelton Lake Visitor Centre,Fuel Filling Station, vehicle circulation and parking areas, landscaping and amenity spaces, pedestrian and cycle links, pumping station, retaining structures and associated mitigation, infrastructure and earthworks, Land Off Junction 45, M1 Motorway, Cross Green , Leeds.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  Details of the proposal

·  Information in respect of the site and its surroundings

·  The relevant planning history along with history of negotiations

·  Public/local response

·  Consultation responses including further responses from the LEP and local MPs 

·  Relevant planning policies

·  Scheme appraisal

In response to Members comments and questions the following was discussed:

·  Members noted that previously this would not have been allowed due to National policy issues, this was no longer a consideration.

·  The potential for good quality food offerings and of benefits of varied franchises within the site.

·  How the site would benefit from such a development, filling an economic gap in the locality.

·  Concerns regarding illumination on an evening, although this might be addressed by more modern methods of illumination.

·  Impact on views from nearby areas such as Temple Newsam House.

·  The highways layout within the site, particularly for larger vehicles such as caravans that are being towed. 

·  The parking provision for differing types of vehicles and whether the distribution/proportions were appropriate, Highways officers advised that these were in line with Highways England guidelines.

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members did not have any concerns about the principle of developing this site as a motorway services area.

·  Members did have some concerns on the compatibility of the use with the adjacent residential led development proposal particularly in respect of potential noise and light nuisance, but they would wait and see how this developed.

·  Members had no concerns in respect of vehicle circulation within the site, subject to addressing the requirements for caravan movement and parking.

·  Members had some concerns in respect of the general layout in so far as noise from the site may impact on local wildlife and biodiversity.

·  Other issues Members would like considering further were a travel plan for staff particularly at night/parking split between general cars and HGVs/charging points for electric cars provision of a multi faith room/the opportunities for local employment and training to be provided by the development.

RESOLVED  - To note the Contents of the position statement.

At the conclusion of this item Councillor Khan left the meeting at 15.45.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer setting out a position statement in respect of - 15/07655/OT  - Outline planning application with all matters reserved except the means of access for the creation of a new community comprising up to 1,100 dwellings, a new food store (A1) (up to 2,000sq.m) a new local centre (A1- A5 and D1 and D2) (up to 1,300 sq.m), a new school and areas of public open space, together with the means of vehicular access at land To East Of Junction 45 Of The M1 Motorway And South Of Pontefract Lane ,Leeds.

Further to minute 83 of the meeting held on the 17 December 2015 the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an Outline planning application with all matters reserved except the means of access for the creation of a new community comprising up to 1,100 dwellings, a new food store (A1) (up to 2,000sq.m) a new local centre (A1- A5 and D1 and D2) (up to 1,300 sq.m), a new school and areas of public open space, together with the means of vehicular access at land to the East of Junction 45 of The M1 Motorway And South Of Pontefract Lane ,Leeds.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  An introduction to the Scheme

·  Details of the site and its surroundings

·  The proposal for the development

·  The planning history

·  History of the negotiations

·  Public/local response

·  Consultation responses

·  Details of the relevant Planning policies

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

• Secondary access to the site
• Primary and secondary school provision including the cost of potentially transporting children to schools away from the area prior to the construction of schools at the site.
• The isolated nature of the site and that the necessary schools, shops and community facilities will not be on site from day one.
• Provision at the site of community facilities for older people and facilities that provide entertainment and also places for faith/worship.
• An improved balance of residential properties including 1 bed properties. 
• Employment opportunities for local people.

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback:

·  Members felt it was important that in coming forward as a residential development it should be as a sustainable community, there were concerns expressed as to the deliverability of the scheme.

·  In terms of the commercial use of the site Members felt they required more detail in terms of size and proposed usage and whether the proposed commercial uses at the adjacent service station would undermine the viability of the commercial uses on this site.

·  Members made comments in respect of the general layout of the

   development and the design parameters outlined as follows;

a) The layout didn’t reflect what Members would expect, in particular officers should have regard to Members previous comments on other developments such as the Seacroft Hospital site to ensure this does not become another ‘beige alley’

b) The need for a mixture of housing types including housing for older people/1 bed accommodation/and for community facilities.

c)  The need for innovative architecture and modern high quality design such as the approach at the Kirkstall Forge site

d)  The concern that some homes were near to the Motorway

• Environmental Health impacts were of concern with regard to the relationship between the development site and the landfill site.
• In respect of the design of the proposed means of access consideration should be given to secondary access.
• The provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer setting out details of a pre application presentation for a proposed new multi-disciplinary Physics and Computing building, The Old Mining Building, University Of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Woodhouse, Leeds, LS2.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation for a proposed new multi-disciplinary Physics and Computing building, The Old Mining Building, University Of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Woodhouse, Leeds, LS2.

A site visit took place prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this pre-application.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel. Issues highlighted in relation to the proposals included the following;

·  An introduction which included details of the emerging proposals for the Schools of Physics and Computing, including a new combined research centre (the Bragg Centre). The proposal, referred to as the North East Quarter development forms a key part of the university’s masterplan to develop and improve facilities across the campus.

·  The provision of a next generation research facility

·  A development that was complex and ambitious.

·  The development was in a conservation area and one of the buildings was Grade 2 listed.

·  Information in respect of the existing site and surroundings.

·  Detail with regard to the sites relevant planning history.

·  Details of consultations that had taken place to date and the responses.

·  They would like the facility to be open in Autumn 2019.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  Concerns about the views ‘up the road’ from the City and how that would be framed.

·  The potential to provide greater visual interest to the gable end of the new building to Woodhouse Lane.

·  The need for buildings to be contemporary

·  How the atrium would fit and its functionality

·  The public realm and the need for this to not be an after-thought.

·  A great deal of discussion took place on the old mining building and there was mixed views amongst Members on the proposed proportion and design of the roof top extension, some members liked the additional level extension which was predominantly glass, other Members felt that in principle an extension was acceptable but not in the current design which some Members felt appeared overly bulky and did not compliment the existing building it sat on.

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members considered that the proposed development was acceptable in principle.

·  Members in considering the rooftop extension felt that it was acceptable in principle, however there was a split view of Members on the design, and it was agreed that an alternate design should be looked at , possibly with less glass.

·  Members considered that the form and the appearance of the proposed new building and linked atrium to the rear of the old mining building school was acceptable.

·  Members in considering materials advised that before offering comment on the use of reconstituted stone they would have liked to have seen a sample and asked for the consideration of the reuse of any Portland stone that was available on site.

·  Members were satisfied with the intended phased approach to the redesign of the space to the front of the Old Mining building.

·  Members agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Thursday 6^th October 2016 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

The next meeting was fixed for Thursday 6^th October 2016 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.