Agenda and minutes

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 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 was one late item submitted to the agenda for consideration. Agenda Item 8 “Position Statement for residential development of 503 houses, conversion of a former hospital administration block, demolition of the former Villa building, associated infrastructure, including two new vehicle access points to A64, public open space and retention of Clock Tower( APP. REF. 15/07300/FU)” Minute No. 94 refers.

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. 

No declarations were made.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Campbell (Cllr Cleasby in attendance as substitute) and Councillor Walshaw (Cllr Selby in attendance as substitute).

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th December 2015.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 17th December 2015 be approved as a correct record subject to the amendment to below:

Minute 82 “Application 15/06583/OT Land between Barrowby Lane and Manston Lane, Thorpe Park, LS15”

To insert: “The outstanding sequential / impact assessment information had been provided and assessed and was considered acceptable”

To remove from Resolution (1): “Satisfactory outcome regarding consideration of the additional sequential/impact assessment information.”

Minute No. 81 Matters Arising From The Minutes

The Head of Planning Services reported to the Panel that a response from Miller Homes had been received following the Council’s approach to work constructively with them. The letter of 23^rd December 2015 highlighted that Miller Homes were not willing to withdraw their appeals but wanted to work co-operatively with the Council. The Panel confirmed that the Council would defend its position.

RESOLVED – That all Plans Panel Members receive a copy of the letter from Miller Homes.

Minute No. 84 PREAPP/1500757 Central Arcade LS1

Members wished to make it known to the developer that they felt the entrance to the Central Arcade would benefit from alterations and improvements to its appearance.

RESOLVED – That officers make contact with the developer to convey the Panel’s views about the appearance of the entrance to the Central Arcade.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer which sets out an outline application for a mixed use redevelopment at Quarry Hill, St Peter’s Street, Leeds, LS2 7UP.

REPORT ATTACHED

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out an application for mixed use redevelopment including A1, A3, A4 and A5 Uses, Offices (B1), Residential (C3), Medical Centre (D1), College (D1), Student Residential Accommodation, multi-storey car park, basement car parking, access and open space on land at Quarry Hill.

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

Representatives from Caddick addressed the Panel in relation to the application and highlighted the following issues:

• That Caddick have been responsible for many high quality developments that have been completed in other cities across the UK and that the company intended to create something special at Quarry Hill;
• The importance of getting a planning consent in order to progress the scheme;
• That the development was large scale and would take place over 6 phases, the phasing plan yet to be confirmed. It was noted that this plan was flexible;
• The central pedestrianized route would be maintained and be a feature of the development;
• The car parking provision for each of the buildings was explained to Members and it was confirmed that underground parking would form part of the development. There would also be a maximisation of surface parking on the site;
• There was an agreement in place with Caddick and Leeds City Council for a multi storey car park to be built. However this would not be built unless it was established that it was viable to do so;
• Contact had been made with educational establishments about possibly using part of the development. Furthermore discussions had also taken place with a student housing operator for one of the plots; and
• That Caddick were committed to deliver this project and that the development would be a positive one for the City.

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

• Details of how the viability would be assessed for the construction of the multi-storey car park and the likelihood of finding an operator to run it;
• The options for what could be developed if it was found that there was no demand to build a multi-storey carpark. It was confirmed that Planning Permission would have to sought for any development should the multi-storey car park not be built. However it was expected that there would be sufficient demand for parking to build the multi-storey car park;
• The parking provision for residential parts of the development. It was confirmed that there would be parking provision in place but that not all residential units would be allocated a space. Parking spaces would be optional to either buy or rent.
• The importance of bringing forward the site in a coherent and timely manner following the strategic master plan that had been presented;
• The A64 footbridge and the possibility of improving it to allow for good pedestrian and cycle access. It was confirmed to Members that Caddick were under obligation to provide finance for these improvements;
• Water discharge from the site, and whether, following the site’s construction,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer which provides a Position Statement with regards to a residential development on the land at Seacroft Hospital, York Road, Leeds, LS14 6UH

REPORT TO FOLLOW AS LATE ITEM

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which provided a position statement with regards to Planning Application 15/07300/FU for a residential development of 503 houses, conversion of a former hospital administration block, demolition of the former Villa building, associated infrastructure including two new vehicle access points to A64, public open space and retention of Clock Tower on land at Seacroft Hospital, York Road, Leeds, LS14 6UH.

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:

• That the site was allocated for housing it being part green field and part brown field;
• The site would have two entrances which would be linked by a central spine road;
• The Clock Tower which formed part of the original hospital buildings on the site would be retained as would some of the existing trees, alongside planting of new trees. There was also provision for public space within the development, although slightly less than normal due to the site abutting a park;
• Confirmation that there would be 905 allocated parking spaces for residents and 101 visitor spaces;
• Flooding issues were addressed and plans to alleviate the possibility of flooding were explained to Members, with the possibility that water storage could be included to allow for slower run -off;
• That the site had been designed so that a secondary school could be built to the eastern side of the development; and
• It was confirmed that 15% of the total proposed residential units would be affordable housing and that a contribution of £964k would be made to the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy).

The Head of Planning Services commented that highways and air quality issues were key considerations that needed to be addressed together for this site and would need to be progressed once formal comments from consultees were received.

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

• In relation to parking provision Members sought clarification that planning permission would be required should any residents wish to convert the garages into habitable rooms in the future;
• Consideration was given to the clock tower including its possible community use and the likely costs of maintaining it;
• The mix of housing was discussed. Members felt that more two bedroomed properties should be included within the development. Extra housing for the elderly was also considered essential. The Panel also questioned the standard that the homes would be built to and considered it important that they matched the “Leeds Standard”;
• In relation to the proposed 15% affordable housing, Members asked that it be considered that coal seams exist in the area and as such the costs relating to any necessary ground stability works could possibly affect the viability of the level of affordable housing being proposed;
• Members felt that they would expect assurance from the developers that they had conducted all enquiries with respect to highways, public transport and air quality. Currently Members felt that they were not in a position to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

1.30pm 11^th February 2016.

1.30pm, Thursday 11^th February 2016.