Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application submitted relating to development proposals for a new retail superstore with associated petrol filling station and shop, three new retail units and public open space along with off-site highway improvements on land off Carr Crofts, near Town Street, Armley.  Members previously considered a progress report on the proposals in July 2010

(Report attached)

The Panel considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application including the siting and access arrangements for a large retail superstore with car parking and three retail units in Armley. The Panel was in receipt of a revised covering report setting out an amended description of development, amended officer recommendation, amended conditions and additional details of heads of terms for the Section 106 agreement.

Plans of the site, street elevations, architects 3D graphics and a photo montage showing the proposals in the street scene were displayed at the meeting. Officers addressed the revisions made to the report and highlighted the amendments made to the proposals since Panel received and commented on a position statement presented in July 2010. In particular:

Petrol station – Reduced in size, set back from Carr Crofts, reorientated to provide better access arrangements and live frontage onto Carr Crofts and improved roof design.

Conservation Area buildings – those originally earmarked for demolition to make way for the petrol station would now be replaced with new retail units to turn the corner on Town Street with public seating set in a wide pedestrian area. Officers concluded that the demolition now had a neutral impact on the Conservation Area, as the new buildings were an acceptable replacement in the conservation area.

Public transport – a new bus stop with real time display to be provided on both sides of Carr Crofts and those on Town Street to be relocated.

In addition officers reported on the following issues previously raised by Members:

Scale and impact on Armley Town Centre – officers reported they had investigated the impact of similar developments on similar town centres as requested in Batley and Rothwell – and concluded that those superstores had generally encouraged vitality in the towns and reduced vacancy.  However there had been some fall off in trade in Batley following introduction of a mezzanine, but this could also be attributable to current economic circumstances.

Whether a smaller scheme would be viable – as previous concerns about the impact of this development on the Conservation Area and highway impact had been addressed, this was no longer a fundamental issue.

Impact on employment – importantly, two companies currently on site had confirmed that they would relocate and expand within the Leeds district.

Officers reported their remaining concerns over the proposed roof form shown on the indicative drawings due to the expanse of the unit and the inclusion of roof lights which were felt to be contrived, but noted this could be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage. Members were directed to the regeneration and employment benefits brought by the proposals as a key issue to consider in light of the matters now addressed. 

The Panel commented the site had historically been a busy area and noted the local support for the scheme, although they were concerned that the relationships between the new development and the neighbourhood were right. Members discussed the following:

Retail Mix –

• noted that Condition 42 restricted uses within the retail store in order to protect uses currently on Town Street.
• queried whether there was flexibility in this condition to reflect subsequent use changes on Town Street and whether the condition would prohibit the store selling products which were available on Town Street.
• commented that shoppers may not venture into Town Street in the future.
• wanted officers to assess this proposed condition further.

Noise –

• noted conditions 22/23 restricted the hours of opening/deliveries and commented that other supermarkets in similar neighbourhoods had later hours. Local residents here would have an expectation this store would open until 23:00 hours.
• queried whether the restriction was necessary and if it would prevent existing uses relocating.
• noted that it would be preferable for the service vehicles to retain their reverse beepers in the interests of public safety.
• could sound deadening surfaces be installed within the service area to alleviate the impact on noise from vehicles.
• wanted officers to assess this proposed condition further.

Officers responded that the restrictions arose from concerns to protect vitality and viability of Town Street and Environmental Protection Team advice regarding potential noise impact. The conditions would not prevent uses relocating and could be reviewed as requested. Surfacing materials would be addressed in the detail of the Reserved Matters application. Restrictions should have regard to the context of the site, as it was surrounded by residential properties.

Opening hours (in particular night time access and car parking arrangements) could be reviewed, perhaps making use of under croft car parking to minimise noise. The main access to the unit would be off Carr Crofts/Station Avenue. Direct access onto Station Avenue will be stopped up.

Roof –

• queried whether a green roof could be incorporated and requested further details on the carbon footprint.

Officers noted that care should be taken when viewing the indicative drawings as such matters would only be designed and formally considered at Reserved Matters stage

Highways –

• welcomed the provision of signals to the Tong Road/Carr Crofts junction as the store would attract customers from the Farnley and Wortley areas.
• Queried if the Branch Road/Armley Road junction should also be addressed as traffic from the new store could use this route and add to long queues of stacking traffic already experienced at the junction waiting to make the difficult right turn onto Armley Road. The Highways Officer confirmed that this concern would be passed onto Urban Traffic Control.

Some Members were concerned about the number of issues which appeared to be unresolved and required further attention through the defer and delegate process. Officers reiterated that some of the issues raised by Panel now could only be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage at which point an application would be brought back to Panel. Furthermore, a defer and delegate decision would afford opportunity to review the conditions relating to restricted uses and proposed hours of operation.  In addition it was agreed that officers would consult ward members on such details prior to a decision being formally issued.

The Panel considered the revised officers recommendation and

RESOLVED – That the application be approved in principle and final approval be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the submission of an acceptable Stage 1 Road Safety Audit; the conditions specified in the revised report and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover those matters listed within the revised report namely the management fee, travel plan monitoring fee (£4,000 index linked), public transport contribution (£660,756 index linked), bus infrastructure contribution (£40,000 index linked), specification and timing of public realm works, specification and timing of woks to the former Chapel, specification and timing of construction/marketing of retail units, details of training and employment for local people.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Leadley required it to be recorded that he voted against this matter.

(Councillors Coulson and Hardy with drew from the meeting)