Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application to demolish and replace the existing building with a six storey office block at 6 Queen Street/28a York Place

(Report attached)

Members considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposals for an office block development with basement car parking at 6 Queen Street/28A York Place.

Plans and architects drawings of the proposals were displayed along with photographs of the existing building, streetscene and photo montages showing the proposed building in-situ.

The Panel had received a pre-application presentation on early proposals for the development in July 2009. Since then the applicant had responded to comments made at that presentation and the subsequent amendments were highlighted within the report. The Panel viewed slides showing the earlier proposals with the revised scheme for comparison and noted the following in particular:

York Place elevation – the window patterns gave a vertical emphasis, creating the form of terrace properties to the street frontage. The windows were set in deep reveals with brick settings. Larger windows were to the ground floor in keeping with the style of the surrounding area but more glazing in smaller windows were located to the upper floor with the 5th floor set back to lessen the impact of the height

Queen Street elevation – the architects’ drawings showed the use of brick, with brise soleil added to the upper floor and the vertical influence of the windows. Windows were again set in deep recesses and the 5^th floor was set further back, appearing as a glazed box

Corner feature - more glazing had been introduced which provided a lighter touch to the treatment of the corner, whilst still linking the two elevations and retaining the vertical feel.

Officers reported the contents of a letter received from Leeds Civic Trust since the despatch of the agenda which broadly welcomed the improvements made to the Queen Street elevation but did comment on the deletion of the use of Portland Stone from the York Place elevation. Officers responded that the use of brick better reflected materials in the area and was more appropriate. The Civic Trust reiterated its concern as to why relatively modern buildings required demolition and officers responded they were relatively poor performers in terms of BREEAM standards and the new build would achieve the “excellent” standard.

Officers reported the contents of the comments now received from METRO regarding the development being well situated in terms of public transport but querying whether the number of car parking spaces could be reduced.

Officers highlighted the request for a 5 year time limit on the permission, rather than the usual 3 years, and explained the current occupiers of the building had a lease until 2012. A 5 year permission would allow the developers time to gain possession of the building.

Additionally, a query had been raised regarding financial viability and the terms of the Section 106 Agreement. A Viability Assessment had been completed and revealed that if the Local Planning Authority sought the public transport infrastructure contributions the whole scheme would not be viable. Officers had responded to this approach by suggesting that the viability could be reconsidered when the scheme commences as part of the Section 106 agreement.

The Panel discussed the following:

Heights – Members noted a comment made that, although it was accepted that pedestrians would not see it, the 5^th floor was one storey too high for this development and prevented the new building sitting in the streetscene.

Officers responded there were varying top floor heights in the locality, some at 7 storeys. This development had regard to Policy which suggested new development be kept  to “within a one floor limit”

Elevations – Panel generally felt the scheme had improved although there was one comment made that the revised elevation on Queen Street was the least successful

Sustainability – Members queried the wording of the condition and suggested a more robust approach be taken to sustainability to ensure the developers had to meet RSS policy and provide those matters detailed in Condition 22, rather than “consider” their provision.

Officers responded that the BREEAM report submitted showed this new building would meet the BREEAM excellent standard. The condition required the developer to investigate the matters listed (green roofs, SUDS etc) and if these could not be provided, the developer would have to provide the LPA with technical analysis of why these measures could not be implemented.

Corner feature – welcomed the revisions to the corner elevation which previously was felt not to marry the two street elevations. A comment regarding the views through the glass feature up the staircase was noted.

Viability – the Panel were not convinced over the present viability of the scheme given the capital cost of the scheme and noted it would not commence until at least 2012. Members discussed the proposed amount for public transport contributions which they did not consider to be a large sum in comparison to the cost of the scheme and expressed concern that this would only be agreed subject to acceptance of the Viability Appraisal (VA)

Public transport infrastructure – The Panel reiterated their concerns that although this new office accommodation would house more staff no contributions to the public transport infrastructure were immediately proposed to support the anticipated additional public transport journeys.

Officers were recommending the LPA look again at the level of contributions prior to commencement of development works by which time the market was expected to recover and anticipated yields from the scheme would be higher. If the contribution expected by the LPA was stated now, the figure could be incorporated into the developers’ build costs.

Courtyard space – noted this would be a north facing and enclosed area and likely to be cold, hard space. Members commented on the type of landscaping proposed

Materials and colour – The Panel commented on the slides representing the intended materials and particularly the colour of the bricks to be used as this was different between the representations of the previous and current proposals.

The Civic Architect addressed the Panel with regards to -

Design - noted the comment about design quality, however he felt this had to be balanced against the alternative view of this being a simple design

Bricks - noting the comment about colour of bricks he acknowledged the slides showed differing colours, stating the brick to be used was likely to have more orange textures than red and there was no reason why the new build could not match the reference building at 27 York Place

Corner feature - the architects new drawing had just been submitted, and he felt the image showed the panels to cover the floor plates to be too light in colour - a gun metal grey colour would be less visible within the glass corner feature. The Panel agreed with this approach and suggested the colour of the frame supporting the glazing on the upper floors be revised to match.

The Head of Planning Services highlighted the requirement to provide 1:20 detailed drawings which would ensure the LPA was provided with sufficient detail of the quality of the scheme and concluded the discussion by outlining amendments to the proposed recommendation as

-  the public transport contribution to be fixed at this stage and index linked

-  the treatment of the panels within the glass corner and upper floor glazing to be addressed

-  condition 16 should also require the provision and retention of shower facilities in the basement

RESOLVED - That determination of the application be deferred and final approval be delegated to the Chief Planning officer subject to:

(a)  the conditions specified in the report (and any others which he might consider appropriate)

(b)  an amendment to Condition 16 to include the provision and retention of shower facilities

(c)  the resolution of the treatment of the panels within the glass corner feature and upper floor glazing

(d)  and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement within 3 months from the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer, to include the following obligations;

•   Public transport contribution of £103,235 index linked

•   Travel Plan with monitoring fee of £4,215.

•   Commitment to use reasonable endeavours to cooperate with LCC Jobs and Skills Service during and post construction regarding employment at the site and use local contractors, sub-contractors and material suppliers where appropriate (but noting that the applicant is a construction company based in Halifax and therefore already has a labour force available for construction).

•   £600 monitoring fee for the public transport contribution

(Under the provisions of  Council Procedure Rule 16:5 it should be noted that Councillor Latty abstained from voting on the above matter)