Agenda and minutes

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 press and 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:

Appendix to Agenda Item 10 – Arena Hotel, Portland Crescent, Leeds. 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 those concerned.  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.

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

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Campbell, J Heselwood and R Procter.  Councillors S McKenna and J Procter were in attendance as substitute Members.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th June 2016.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2016 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following addition:

Further to the discussion on Leeds 5 Year Land Supply that it be noted that further to the recent decision by the Secretary of State which concluded that Leeds did not have a five year land supply that this could lead to greenfield development land being released prematurely.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which detailed a proposed extension, recladding and change of use of former offices to form hotel and open space at land bounded by New York Road, Bridge Street, Gower Street and Regent Street, Leeds 2.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a proposed extension, recladding and change of use of former offices to form hotel and open space at land bounded by New York Road, Bridge Street, Gower Street and Regent Street.

A site visit had taken place prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the application.

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

·  The site was formerly occupied by British Gas and had been vacant for approximately fifteen years.

·  The Panel had received a pre-application presentation in March 2016.

·  Changes to the street along the New York Road side of the development were explained.  These included improved pedestrian facilities that would go the whole way around the site.

·  There would be 56 car parking spaces within the site.  These would include disabled parking, electric charging bays and coach parking.

·  There would be a landscaped open space area.  This could be used for an activity space.

·  There would be a 168 bedroom hotel with a 10 storey tower element.

·  Materials to be used – examples of materials to be used were made available for Members to examine.

·  It was recommended that the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval.

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

·  Restoration of tiling on the Bridge Street underpass.

·  Subsequent phases of the development would include extra car parking.

·  Further to concern regarding the condition of the face of the bridge adjacent to the site, it was reported that the applicant was keen to make improvements to the surrounding area.

·  It was reported that there were already restrictions in place which would prevent vehicles stopping on New York Road towards the proposed hotel entrance.

·  The applicant had held discussions with an internationally recognised hotel chain and the hotel would be aimed at mid-range to serve customers of the Arena and the new Trinity and Eastgate developments.

·  The open space area could be used on a temporary basis for outdoor events but it would not be appropriate to make permanent use of that space at this stage.

·  With regard to future landscaping at the site it was reported that there were conditions to the application that would cover this.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the specified conditions in Appendix 1 and also the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Green Travel Plan and review fee of £2,910

·  24 hour public access through the site

·  Local employment and training initiatives

·  Section 106 management fee (£750)

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer  detailing a Pre-application presentation for the retrospective demolition of 101-104 Kirkgate, the demolition of 10-11 Crown Court, and the construction of a new mixed-use building at 101-104 Kirkgate, Leeds.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation for the retrospective demolition of 101-104 Kirkgate, the demolition of 10-11 Crown Court and the construction of a new mixed use building.

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:

·  The site was at the lower part of the Kirkgate area and was surrounded by listed buildings.  This proposal would give an opportunity to commence the regeneration of the area.

·  The proposed building would reflect the vibrant cultural character of the area and reference was made to the heritage of the site.

·  Servicing and access arrangements had been discussed with Highways.

·  There would be a walkway from Kirkgate through to Crown Street.

·  Members were shown proposed floor plans.  The A3 use unit would be at a higher level.

·  The main facing element of the three storey building would have a zinc clad finish and also be detailed with a dutch gable.

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

·  The applicant owned several other properties in the area which gave scope for co-ordinated development.

·  First White Cloth Hall – It was acknowledged that the First White Cloth Hall was critical to the regeneration of the area.  Reference was made to potential for rebuilding/restoration and it was reported that discussion had taken place between the owners and the Council regarding the buildings future.

·  Concern regarding a public right of way at the site which was currently cordoned off.

·  Concern regarding the unsightly ventilation flues situated on surrounding buildings.

·  How to maintain the heritage of the area.

·  Scope for local employment opportunities.

·  Street lighting.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, Members broadly supported the demolition of 10-11 Crown Court, but had mixed views about the emerging design  and agreed with the principal of a new building on the location of 101-104 Kirkgate.  With regard to highways and transportation matters, reference was made to pedestrian access and the need for connectivity.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.

To receive a report of The Chief Planning Officer Pre-application presentation for the remodeling of the former Majestic Cinema/Nightclub to create a 6 story office building with ground floor and basement commercial B1/A1/A3/A4/D2 uses. Creation of office floors behind retained outer walls and new glazed elevation to roof top addition, City Square.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation for the remodelling of the former Majestic Cinema/Nightclub to create a 6 storey office building with ground floor and basement commercial B1/A1/A3/A4/D2 uses.  Creation of office floors behind retained outer walls and new glazed elevation to roof top addition.

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

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  Following the fire in 2014, the external structure of the building had been saved and the proposals were felt to offer the best solution for the long term future of the building.

·  Members were given a brief history of the building which fell within the City Conservation area and was seen as a gateway building to the City.

·  The proposals would see an upward glazed extension to the centre of the building.  The proposals were primarily to use the building as office space and this would allow more natural light.

·  Historic England had commented on the proposals and felt that there would be no harm to the outside of the building as a landmark.

·  Members were shown proposals for the entrance to the building which would include new doorways to either side of the current entrance.  Proposals for the foyer and Palm Court were also shown.

·  Pictures of how the proposed development would look during the day and at night time were displayed.

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

·  Car parking and parking for services to the building.

·  Flood risk – there had not been any history of flooding at the building.

·  Members praised the design proposals.

·  It was hoped that a planning application would be submitted in August 2016.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report,  Members considered the proposed uses for the building, the external elevations and the approach to internal spaces acceptable.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which detailed a Pre-application presentation for Reserved Matters for office building and multi-storey car park, pursuant to outline permission 13/02619/OT (Outline permission for 3 office buildings, multi-storey car park and pavilion unit, with ground floor food, drink and gym uses and public realm) at Whitehall Riverside,

Whitehall Road, LS1.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation for Reserved Matters for an office building and multi-storey car park pursuant to outline permission 13/02619/OT (outline permission for 3 office buildings, multi-storey car park and pavilion unit with ground floor food, drink and gym uses and public realm) at Whitehall Riverside.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on the pre-application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  Phase 1 of the development would be the office block and phase 2 the multi-storey car park.

·  The office building would be eight storey with basement car parking.  There would be frontages to Whitehall Road and the riverside.

·  There would be improvements to existing entrances to the site.

·  Materials to be used on the office building.

·  There would be pedestrian access through the site.

·  The multi-storey car park would be 10 storeys with a mix of short and long stay.

·  Public realm elements and how to fit these in with the overall character of the riverside.  Proposals included the development of a riverside square and a green boulevard to the city.  Further issues highlighted included landscaping, street furniture, management of surface water and pedestrian entrances.

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

·  There had been some interest from potential occupiers of the office building, both for part and full use.

·  The proposals aimed to compliment the surrounding buildings.

·  The use of local employment.

·  Some concern was expressed regarding traffic in the immediate area which already saw congestion at peak times.

·  Further to questions outlined in the report, Members supported the emerging designs for the office block and multi-storey car park along with the emerging public realm, landscape design and vehicular access and circulation proposals.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.

To receive a report of The Chief Planning Officer detailing a proposal for 215 Apartments, with ancillary ground floor commercial uses, located within a 16 storey block, at Land At Corner Of Whitehall Road And Springwell Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS12 1AW.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer present a pre-application proposal for 215 apartments with ancillary ground floor commercial uses, located within a 16 storey block on land at the corner of Whitehall Road and Springwell Road, Holbeck Leeds.

There had been a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the pre-application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  Reference was made to the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan and consultation with the Holbeck Neighbourhood Forum had seen support for the proposals.

·  A proposed layout of the site was shown.  Servicing access for commercial units would be from Springwell Road.

·  The highest part of the building would be 16 storeys and would be stepped down with landscaped roof terraces.

·  Design of the apartments – it was proposed that the apartments would not have corridors in order to utilise as much space as possible.  Work had been carried out with fire safety engineers with regards to the use of sprinkler systems which would counteract the loss of corridors as firebreaks.

·  The size of the proposed apartments was larger than compliance requirements.

·  Materials used on the elevations would include red brick, aluminium and glass panels.

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

·  The stone boundary wall on Whitehall Road would not be retained as there needed to be ground floor access to the street.

·  Trees on the rooftop terraces would be limited in size due to the size and depth of the planters.

·  The applicant had not previously built apartments without corridors.

·  There would be five percent affordable units within the development.

·  The large number of one bed apartments/studios – it was reported that this would provide alternatives to HMOs and those properties could be re-used for family housing.

·  There would be two lifts in different parts of the building.

·  There would be 22 apartments with access to the roof terraces.  Maintenance of these would the responsibility of the residents.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, the following was discussed:

o  Members agreed that the proposed use of the site for a predominantly residential scheme, PRS model of tenure and the mix of dwellings was appropriate.

o  Members agreed that the scale, height, design and form of the proposed development was appropriate for the location.  There were no concerns regarding the proposed appearance, use of materials or landscaping proposals.

o  With regard to the size of the accommodation on offer and the proposed layouts concern was expressed that the size of the majority of apartments was below recommended standards.  There was also further concern regarding the design of the apartments without corridors and fire safety implications.  It was asked whether there was scope to amend the design to achieve size standards and also felt that further assurance be sought regarding fire safety.

o  The level of car parking provided with the proposals was felt to be satisfactory.

RESOLVED – That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To receive a report of the Director of City Development providing information on the Arena Hotel, Portland Crescent, Leeds.

The report of the Director of City Development provided Members with an update on the position with regards to the development of the Arena Hotel, Portland Crescent, Leeds.

It was reported that work at the site had stopped following the building contractor and its parent company going into administration in March 2015.  Discussions had been held with the Co-operative Bank and a prospective purchaser and it was hoped that an agreement could be completed by the end of July.  This would allow work to commence again in August 2016 with a completion date of November 2017.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

1.30pm 28^th July 2016.

Thursday, 28 July 2016 at 1.30 p.m.