Agenda item

Further to minute 67 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 4^th March 2010 where Panel considered a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for change of use including refurbishment and extensions to 2 church buildings with 2 flats, to form offices and 18 flats and erect part 3 part 4 storey block comprising office and 32 flats with car parking and 09/03280/CA – Conservation Area application to demolish office and 09/033971/LI – Listed Building application for alterations for replacement gate in boundary wall

(report attached)

  Further to minute 67 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 4^th March 2010 where Members considered a position statement for the redevelopment of St Peter’s Hall and House and Chantrell House, Leeds Parish Church, Kirkgate, the Panel considered the formal applications

  Plans, drawings, graphics, photographs and a model were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which all of the Panel Members had attended

  Officers presented the report and highlighted the revisions made to the scheme in view of Members’ comments on the position statement by showing comparative images

  Members were informed of the following revisions:

·  that the height of the proposals had been reduced

·  that there would be  one less flat within the scheme

·  the roof design had been altered and now pitched roofs would be provided

·  the previously glazed vertical slots indicating the locations of staircases would be now be clad in stone

·  realignment of the windows to provide a consistent approach across all three buildings and alterations to window treatments to create shadow and relief on the elevations

Members were informed that the scheme should provide affordable

housing of 7 units but that a financial appraisal had been submitted requesting affordable housing to be restricted to 4 units in Chantrell House, with the income generated from the units in St Peter’s Hall and House to be used to fund maintenance works to the adjacent Grade I listed Leeds Parish Church

  Officers sought Panel’s approval in principle to the scheme and requested final approval to be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the design details of the recesses and the absence of chimneys on Chantrell House

·  the lack of windows on the gable wall of the extension of St Peter’s Hall

·  that some of the best features would be covered up on St Peter’s Hall, which albeit some of the window frames were in poor condition, created an important view down The Calls

·  that the extension to St Peter’s Hall had tried, unsuccessfully, to imitate the adjacent Victorian building and that it was not of a high enough quality given its surroundings and proximity to a Grade I Listed church

·  that as an entrance into a precinct it was unattractive

·  that although improvements had been made to the scheme it was still not good enough, particularly the blocking off of the view of the Parish Church from Maud Street

·  concerns about the design of Chantrell House; that the parapet should be in stone as opposed to stone and brick; that more glazing could be introduced on the elevations and concerns at the design of this building adjacent to the Parish Church

·  that what was being shown was a comparison with an earlier scheme; that the current scheme should be considered in isolation and the view that this scheme was not good enough

·  that if the intention was to create a cathedral close, the buildings faced the cathedral, whereas Chantrell House did not face the Parish Church

·  that the applicant had taken on board Members’ comments and responded but the scheme was not of sufficient quality to approve in this location

·  Officers provided the following responses:

·  that the inclusion of chimneys on Chantrell House could be considered

·  the lack of windows on the St Peter’s Hall extension could be due to the internal arrangements but that this could be discussed further with the applicant

·  that the length of engagement of this project had been ten years and had been one of the most difficult projects in the city

·  that Members’ comments appeared to go further than those made on the position statement, with the concerns expressed likely to lead to a reduction in the amount of development on the site

Further discussion on the application ensued with particular concerns

being raised that the proposals for St Peter’s Hall were unacceptable; that the scheme would be improved without Chantrell House in its present form and that the proposals for St Peter’s House might be acceptable subject to some further revisions.  Members made it clear that the scheme in its current form would not be approved

  The Head of Planning Services stated that Members’ views had been noted and that the applicant had a choice to make, but that Officers would need to discuss these matters with the applicant and to submit a further report setting out the results of these negotiations.  The Panel was advised that the quantum of development on the site was likely to be reduced and that the report would seek the Panel’s views on where there was room for manoeuvre in the scheme

  RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred to enable further discussions to be undertaken on the issues raised by Members and that a further report be submitted in due course