Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer  setting out proposed reasons to refuse an application for the erection of a 33 storey and a 55 storey development with connecting covered public winter garden -  comprising 832 flats, 120 serviced apartments, offices, health centre ground floor and mezzanine level retail uses (A1, A3, A4 and A5) and basement car parking with landscaping. This scheme is a revision to permission 06/01622/FU which was approved by Panel on 4^th April 2007

(Report attached)

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Planning Officer on the current position with regards to the Lumiere development and setting out four proposed reasons to refuse application 08/1914/FU (which set out revisions to Application 06/01622/FU approved in April 2007) relating to the scheme.

The Panel was aware of the planning history of the site. Panel had delegated authority to grant permission for Application 08/1914/FU for the revised scheme to officers on 22 July 2008 subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement (S106).

The report before Panel today outlined the lack of progress of the scheme and the attempts made to encourage the developer to complete and sign the S106 necessary for the final grant of the permission. A copy of the July 2008 report and minutes of that meeting were included for reference.

Development works on site ceased in July 2008. KW Linfoot, joint developer of the scheme, went into Administration in February 2009, following which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) contacted Fraser Properties as the partner developer to seek to finally dispose of the application due to the failure to complete and sign the 106 Agreement.

The Head of Planning Services reported that the agent for the application had responded just prior to the meeting stating their agreement to the matter being presented to Panel for determination. In essence this report sought approval to move the application from Part 1 of the Planning Register (current schemes) to Part 2 (Historical schemes). The Panel was assured that this would not represent the end of the Lumiere development as the 2007 permission remained extant and could be completed. Mechanisms existed for developers to seek an extension on the time limit of permissions and this could be done in this case.

The Panel was advised that there were 62 similar schemes in the city centre where there was an extant permission where an extension of time could be applied for.

The Panel discussed problems reported generally with developers being able to deliver contributions detailed within S106 Agreements, particularly having regard to the current economic climate. The Head of Planning Services reported on government advice that encouraged LPA’s take a flexible approach in such cases, such as reviewing the date of contributions payments, if that would assist the delivery of the overall scheme. Additionally, a developer could make an application to vary the terms of a S106 attached to permission, however he emphasised the need for developers to remain in contact with the LPA particularly about any changes in circumstances as failure to deliver the S106 would be an enforcement matter.

Members expressed regret that the scheme had not been progressed. The Panel whilst supporting the officers’ recommendation contained within the report also sought to emphasise their continued support for the Lumiere development and remained keen to see the 2007 permission implemented

RESOLVED –  To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1) In the absence of a completed signed Section 106 Agreement the proposal fails to deliver any provision of affordable housing and therefore does not address, and is contrary to, the national strategic housing policy objectives outlined in paragraphs 9 and 10, 20-24, and 27- 29 of PPS3 (Housing), the regional requirements in policy H4 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS – May 2008) and the requirements in the City as stated in policies GP7, H11 and H12 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and amplified in Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 (SPG3 – Feb 2003) and the Housing Need Assessment Update (SPG Annex, July 2005 - Revision April 2009).

2) In the absence of a completed signed Section 106 Agreement, the proposed development has failed to make the necessary contributions to enhancements and improvements to public transport infrastructure required by Policy T2D of the adopted UDPR and amplified by LCC. Supplementary Planning Document on Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions such that existing traffic congestion and public transport service, accessibility and capacity problems would be aggravated by the proposal. This is contrary to the sustainability objectives of PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPG13 (Transport); regional advice contained in RSS policy T1; and policies GP7, CC1, T2(ii) and T2D of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and the SPD on Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions.

3) In the absence of a completed signed Section 106 Agreement, there is no means of securing adequate levels of public access, in terms of the number of access points, routes through and the times of access to these routes, across the site. This creates the potential for this site, which is at a key point in the layout of the city centre, to be privatised, hindering easy access and connectivity through this important landmark city centre site. This would be contrary to the objectives of PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and policies GP5, GP7, CC1, CC9, CC12, CC13, BD3 and N12 of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).

4) In the absence of a completed signed Section 106 Agreement, the proposed development has failed to make the necessary contributions to enhancements and improvements to the local highway and footway network such that existing traffic congestion, accessibility and capacity problems would be aggravated by the proposal. This is contrary to the objectives of PPG13 (Transport); regional advice contained in the RSS, policy T1; and policies GP7, CC1, T2(i) and T2D of the adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006)