Agenda and minutes
Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds
Contact: Angela M Bloor 2474754 Email: angela.bloor@leeds.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's opening remarks Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, and asked Councillor Khan and Councillor Ritchie, who were new members of the Panel, to introduce themselves
|
|
Late Items
To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration
(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)
Minutes: There were no formal late items, however the Panel was in receipt of supplementary information in respect of application 15/00415/FU – Low Fold, which had been circulated prior to the meeting and had been published on the Council’s website (minute 6 refers)
|
|
Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
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. Minutes: There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests
|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies for absence had been received from the following Members: Councillor P Gruen, Councillor E Taylor, Councillor R Procter and Councillor Hamilton, with Councillors Harland; S McKenna and J Procter substituting for their respective colleagues
|
|
To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 14th May 2015
(minutes approved)
Minutes: RESOLVED - That the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 14th May2015 be approved
|
|
Further to minute 185 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 14th May 2015, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for 312 dwellings including new open space and associated works, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application
(report attached)
Additional documents: Minutes: Further to minute 185 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 14th May 2015, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a major residential development on a brownfield site close to the City Centre, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application. A supplementary report which set out proposed conditions to be attached to an approval was considered alongside the main report Plans, photographs, graphics, artist’s impressions and precedent images were displayed at the meeting. A Members site visit had previously taken place and as part of the round of site visits earlier in the day, Members had driven past this site The Deputy Area Planning Manager presented the report and outlined the scheme, highlighting detailed design elements of the proposed landscaping and elevations and referring to the generally supportive comments made by Panel about the proposals at the May meeting. Particular issues where concerns had been raised related to the level of affordable housing offer and the desire of the applicant to provide a bridge link in lieu of the required level of affordable housing; the durability of some of the proposed materials and the traffic implications arising from the absence of visitor parking within the scheme Members were informed that the developer had agreed to increase the number of affordable housing units to 16, however these would not be a mix of houses and flats, but would be 1 and 2 bed flats. This would enable the developer to also provide the river bridge. Whilst the provision of this bridge was not necessary to make the development acceptable, in terms of the opportunities it would provide to link to sites in the wider area, it was seen as being of great importance In terms of durability of the proposed cladding materials, details of these had been included in the submitted report Concerning parking, no dedicated visitor parking would be provided on site, however the developer was of the view that based on previous experience, not all of the available parking for residents was likely to be taken up. Residents would have access to a Smart App to see where parking spaces were available so could inform their visitors where they could park. Additionally, as part of the S106 agreement, the developer would carry out a parking survey of the area from a walking distance of 800m from the site access road and resurvey this area after the development was complete. If parking problems arising from the development were evident, mitigation measures would be provided Members were informed that the Environment Agency was now happy with the flood risk assessment and had withdrawn their objection, provided that the flood mitigation measures were carried out as proposed and were controlled by condition, which Officers were satisfied with If minded to accept the Officer’s recommendation, amendments to the Officer’s recommendation would be required to clarify that the delivery of the bridge to be controlled by the S106 agreement should ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of residential development, landscaping, open space and incorporating associated new access (layout, appearance, landscaping and scale reserved). The proposals were previously considered by City Plans Panel as a position statement at its meeting held on 21st November 2013 (minute 110 refers)
(report attached)
Minutes: Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting. A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day Officers presented a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for residential development, landscaping, open space and new access, with all other matters reserved, on a greenfield site, allocated in the UDP Review for housing at Great North Road Micklefield. A position statement on the proposals had been considered by City Plans Panel on 21st November 2013 Details of the access arrangements; the existing boundary treatments of the site and the relationship of the site to the adjacent newly built dwellings were highlighted. Members were informed that the small area of Green Belt land sited between the housing allocation site and the A1(M) was being proposed by the applicant to be incorporated into the red line boundary to provide additional green space. As this was a departure from the Development Plan, the application would require re-advertisement In terms of highways issues, the applicant had been asked to consider a solution which improved the existing junction at Barnsdale Road and Church Lane, with the proposals being put forward to widen Barnsdale Road and introduce a right hand turning lane into Church Lane. This was considered to be acceptable to Highway Officers In terms of the Grade II Listed mile stone, Members were informed this was outside of the development area and would not be affected by the proposals although a condition to protect it during the works was proposed The proposals would involve tree loss, with this being outlined in the submitted report. Members were informed that most of the trees to be removed were classed as category C, i.e. trees of low quality or young trees, although some category B trees, i.e. trees of moderate quality or value, would be affected. It was stated that this tree loss was unavoidable as the housing allocation had to be delivered Objections had been received to the proposals, with particular concerns relating to the highways scheme. Although an alternative roundabout solution had been proposed, this would also impact on trees. Receipt of two further representations was reported, these raising issues relating to highways and flooding. Members were informed that Highways Officers were satisfied with the Stage 1 Safety Audit which had been undertaken on the proposed highway works. In respect of flood risk management, mitigation measures could be installed, with these being dealt with at the detailed design stage Details of the planning obligations were provided, which would include affordable housing at 15% In view of the need to re-advertise the application, Members were informed of a revision to the wording of the recommendation to accommodate this The Panel then heard representations from two objectors who, with agreement of the Chair were on this occasion, given two minutes each to address Members The concerns relating to the proposals were outlined and included: · drainage issues · school provision, particularly in view of the lack of land to expand the local ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a Reserved Matters application for plot A2 of the wider Thorpe Park masterplan
(report attached)
Minutes: Plans, graphics, drawings and photographs 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 a Reserved Matters application for a three storey office building with roof mounted plant housing and associated parking on Plot A2 at Thorpe Park The design of the scheme was outlined and details of the proposed materials were provided. Members were informed what was proposed was a simple, high quality design which incorporated a range of sustainable elements, including provision on the roof for solar photovoltaics. No objections to the application had been raised and the scheme was policy compliant RESOLVED - To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to addressing outstanding issues and the imposition of the conditions set out in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate)
|
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a four storey office building with parking
(report attached)
Minutes: Plans and graphics 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 on an application for a four storey office building with associated parking on Plot 3175, sited off Century Way, west of the roundabout off Junction 46 of the M1 Members were informed that the Coal Board had removed their objection to the scheme In view of the development being for office use, Officers recommended an alteration to the recommendation to include provision for an alteration of the S106 covering the original consent in terms of triggers for the provision of the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR) which was linked to the amount of office accommodation on the site RESOLVED - To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to addressing outstanding issues; the imposition of the conditions set out in the submitted report ( and any others which he might consider appropriate) and to include provision for any requisite variation of the S106 in terms of triggers for the provision of the MLLR
|
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out pre-application proposals for a mixed use development comprising offices, residential, supporting A1, A3, A4 and D1 uses and public open space and to receive a presentation on behalf of the developer
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.
(report attached)
Minutes: Plans, photographs including a 1951 photograph of the site; an historic painting of Holbeck; graphics; precedent images and a fly-through were displayed at the meeting. A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day The Deputy Area Planning Manager introduced the proposals and referred to the number of proposed developments for Holbeck Urban Village including the Tower Works site which had been brought forward but had not progressed. Reference was also made to the Holbeck Urban Village Planning Framework, which set out the urban design framework and key principles for development within Holbeck Urban Village (HUV) and the number of historic buildings within the area, several of which were Listed The Tower Works site was owned by the Homes and Communities Agency which had run a competition to develop the site, with Carillion Developments winning the competition and having now entered into pre-application discussions with Officers. The parameters for the competition had referenced the existing planning permission for the site and the adopted planning guidance for the area in relation to massing; scale; connectivity and preserving the setting of the Listed Buildings Members were informed that an application proposal had also been received from the adjacent site owner, with pre-application discussions beginning to take place and that it was important that the developers of both sites worked collaboratively to ensure delivery of the planning objectives in the Holbeck Urban Village Planning Framework The Panel then received a presentation from a representative of the developers of the Tower Works site, with Members being provided with information on the proposals which included: · the mix of uses proposed, these being residential; flexible office space and a range of active uses, including shops, restaurants, cafes and bars, along with public open space · that nine buildings were proposed to be arranged around the site · the provision of a main square area which would include a water feature · that 50% of the site would be Public Open Space and that the use of text within the floor plain would provide a history of the site to its visitors · the use of greenery which would be used vertically and horizontally · that to respect the Listed Buildings, the buildings on Globe Road would be kept to a lower level and that the original factory entrance would be used to access the site · the treatment of Water Lane, with the historic factory wall being continued and new building being sited above it · the residential accommodation and that this would be a mix of town houses and flats In response to questions from Members, additional information was provided relating to: · on-site parking. This would be at a low level as the site was in a highly sustainable location and was close to public transport links. Low level/minimal parking was specified in the HUV Planning Framework and to avoid vehicles coming into HUV, a multi-storey car park was proposed on the periphery of the village. The Listed Building posed limitations in terms of providing an underground car park, as ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
|
To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on proposals for a new structure at roof level and to receive a presentation on behalf of the developer
(report attached)
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.
Minutes: Plans and graphics were displayed at the meeting Members received a presentation from the developer’s architect on proposals for a roof top extension to the southern arcade block of the Victoria Gate development The background to the project; the construction process and planning history were briefly outlined to the Panel. Members were reminded that the original approved scheme for the first phase of the development included a 3 storey block to the southern edge of the site. The developer then considered that not all 3 floors to this side of the Phase 1 site were required and submitted a variation application to remove the top floor of the southern block. In view of the level of demand for restaurant space within the scheme, the developer was now seeking to reintroduce a 3rd floor to the southern block Due to the level of construction which had already been carried out, a lightweight solution to providing this additional accommodation was proposed, with corten steel and patinated brass being considered The Panel also heard representations from an objector who expressed concern that the proposal would impact on the viability of the Templar Pub and other A3 and A4 uses in the immediate vicinity of the site and that Hammersons had appeared to have changed their views on what were appropriate uses in this area The Panel discussed the proposals and sought reassurances about the access arrangements to the roof top restaurant by people with mobility issues. Members were reassured that as well as a spiral staircase, there was good lift provision In response to the specific points raised in the report, the Panel provided the following comments: · that the scale, massing and layout of the proposed extension were acceptable · that the design and materials proposed were acceptable. The confidence Members had in the developer’s architect, Mr Ludewig, was stressed · that the proposal could be delegated to Officers for the determination of any subsequent planning application
|
|
Date and Time of Next Meeting Thursday 2nd July 2015 at 1.30pm
Minutes: Thursday 2nd July 2015 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds
|