Agenda item

Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 11^th October 2007, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for an extension of time for planning application 07/04987/FU – multi-level development up to 13 storeys comprising 147 flats and gymnasium with surface and covered car parking

(report attached)

  Further to minute 61 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 11^th October 2007 where Panel approved in principle a residential development with gym and car parking on the former Bellows Engineering site, East Street LS9, Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking an extension of time for the development

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  Officers presented the report and informed Members that as the principle of development had been agreed in 2007, this application was being considered against any changes of policy which had occurred since the original planning permission had been granted

  Officers referred to concerns raised by local residents in respect of security; landscaping and car parking and that the developer had been in discussions with residents to try to address their concerns

  It had been recognised that there were parking problems in the area and Members were informed that these would be addressed in the S106 Agreement

  Members were informed that the developer was seeking a 5 year permission instead of the usual 3 years, in view of the current economic situation

  Officers were of the view that the application complied with current policies and were recommending approval of the application

  The Panel heard representations from the developer’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting.  The developer who was in attendance was asked by the Chair to respond to matters of fact raised by the Panel

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  that details of the travel plan were needed

·  the proposed car parking arrangements and whether this could worsen the current parking situation

·  that the site which was currently blocked off with hoardings was unattractive and the intention for it to remain in a poor state for up to 4-5 years was unacceptable, particularly from a major developer

·  that the introduction of planting and a recent coat of paint to the hoardings was not sufficient and no controls existed to secure the on-going maintenance of this screening

·  that there was a pragmatic denial of greenspace for residents of the developments which had been completed

·  that an extra condition could be included requiring improvements to the site if a 5 year permission was sought

·  that the site should be opened up; an appropriate see-through fence erected for safety and the area should be grassed over

·  that the footpath by St Saviour’s Church should be opened up

·  clarification on what issues Panel could consider in view of the application being for an extension of time of a previous planning permission

Officers provided the following responses

·  that a revised travel plan had been submitted and that an evaluation and monitoring fee would be required.  The travel plan covered the existing conditions on site and objectives for a range of travel methods and car club usage.  It identified a travel plan co-ordinator and targets to identify more sustainable forms of transport.  There would be a requirement for the travel plan co-ordinator to be appointed before the flats were marketed to enable prospective residents to be provided with information at an early stage and to enable travel patterns to be monitored

In terms of targets, the national statistics would be applied, these being 36% car drivers in the morning peak; 36% pedestrians; 20% public transport with cycling and taxis making up the rest

·  in terms of car parking, the Panel’s Highways representative stated that an acceptable level of car parking was being provided in this development.  Whilst noting local residents’ concerns on this matter, it was felt that some of the problems stemmed from residents in Echo City 1 not taking up the option of car parking spaces.  Members noted the information provided by the objector on this matter that parking spaces were additional to the cost of a flat within the development. 

The Central Area Planning Manager stated that parking pressures arose from various sources; that the maximum number of spaces which could be provided for the development was 147 which was only 27 more than proposed and that even at the maximum UDP level of 1 space per unit, this would not solve the on-street parking problems which occurred in this area.  Officers accepted that the development would have an impact but that on-street parking issues could be better addressed by introducing TROs in the area

Members were informed the TRO controls were to be funded by the Echo City development; the sports hall development at nearby Mount St Mary’s RC High School and through a contribution of just over £23,000 related to the development of the application site.  The TRO controls would include permit parking for businesses in the area, short stay parking during the day with general parking overnight and an extension of double yellow lines on nearby streets.  It was considered that the proposed TRO measures would help to resolve the on-street parking issues

·  in relation to issues the Panel could consider, the Head of Planning Services stated that the concerns about height raised by the objector could be given little weight as there had been no material change to this since the last approval.  Concerning the car parking, in the intervening period issues relating to parking had arisen and these could be considered.  If minded to approve the application, an extra condition was proposed requiring the submission and approval of a car parking management plan

Members considered how to proceed.  In view of the points raised and the need for further discussions between the residents/developer and possibly Ward Members, a proposal was made to defer determination of the application for one cycle; this was not supported

  RESOLVED -  That subject to further discussions and satisfactory resolution of the following matters

·  a temporary landscape solution to be put in place

·  more appropriate see-through fencing to be erected on the site and the land to be grassed over

·  the opening up of the footpath by St Saviour’s Church

·  timescales for this work to be set out as part of an approval

to defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer for a 5 year permission and subject to the specified conditions, including the submission and approval of a car park management plan and agreed timescales for improvement works to the site, as set out above (and any others which he might consider appropriate); the submission of an acceptable revised Travel Plan and following completion of a Deed of Variation of the original Section 106 Agreement to cover the following additional matters:

Original 2005 Section 106 – Affordable housing provision, provision of public space, contribution towards off site highways works including realignment of pedestrian crossings

2007 Deed of Variation – Affordable housing provision

Current Deed of Variation – a public transport infrastructure improvements contribution of £13,661; a Green Travel Plan monitoring and evaluation fee of £2735; a Traffic Regulation Order sum of £23,240 and a car club trial contribution of £3200

  In the circumstances where the Deed of Variation of the Section 106 Agreement 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

  In the event that the matters outlined above for discussion cannot be satisfactorily resolved that the matter be brought back to Panel for determination

  (During consideration of this matter, Councillors M Hamilton and Taggart joined the meeting)