Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline planning application for the variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 11/01000/OT to allow for a leisure use (D2 Use Class) and Casino use

(Sui Generis) as Part of a Retail-Led Mixed Use Development and Non Material Amendment 12/9/00098/MOD to Amend the Development Description to include Leisure use (D2 Use Class) and Casino use (Sui Generis) at Eastgate Quarters, Leeds on land bound by New York Road (Inner Ring Road A64) to the North, Bridge Street and Milgarth Street to the East, George Street and Dyer Street to the South and Vicar Lane and Harewood Street to the West LS2.

Also attached is a Digital Media Overarching Report in relation to Agenda Item 8 and 9.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an outline planning application for the variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 11/01000/OT to allow for a leisure use (D2 Use Class) and Casino use (Sui Generis) as Part of a Retail-Led Mixed Use Development and Non Material Amendment 12/9/00098/MOD to Amend the Development Description to include Leisure use (D2 Use Class) and Casino use (Sui Generis) at Eastgate Quarters, Leeds on land bound by New York Road (Inner Ring Road A64) to the North, Bridge Street and Milgarth Street to the East, George Street and Dyer Street to the South and Vicar Lane and Harewood Street to the West, Leeds 2.

Appended to the report were copies of the following documents for the information/comment of the meeting:-

• Floor Space Comparison Tables: 12/03002/OT (Appendix 1 refers)
• Planning Policies and Guidance: 12/03002/OT (Appendix 2 refers)
• Non Standard Conditions: 12/03002/OT (Appendix 3 refers)

Members were shown detailed plans and photographs of the site.

Sarah Mc Mahon, Senior Planner briefly outlined the proposals contained in the submitted report.

The Chair informed the meeting that there were two speakers against the recommendation in attendance, namely Sam Parker (CAMRA) and Stuart Long (Save The Templar Campaign).

Mr S Parker requested the Panel to protect the running of Templar Hotel public house in view of its long standing heritage and thriving spirit in the area. Reference was also made to the receipt of 1,200 signatures in support for the retention of the public house and of the backing of local MP’s.

Mr S Long stated that he was against any proposal to move the public house which was considered to be a national monument. He also requested that the inside be retained as it was and that there had been no problems with the police in relation to the running of the premises.

The Chair then invited questions and comments from Members on the comments made.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• Clarification of the police’s involvement at the public house
• Clarification of the current ownership of the public house
• Clarification if there had been any internal changes made to the public house over the last forty years

The Chair informed the meeting that there was one speaker in attendance in support of the application, namely Chris Jones, a planning consultant on behalf of CRBE, the applicant.

In summary, Mr C Jones made reference to the following specific issues:-

• That the development would be retail led
• That there was a continuing dialogue on the proposals with planning officers with good progress made
• That the proposals did not affect Templar Hotel public house
• That excellent progress was being made with the East Quarter development

The Chair then invited questions and comments from Members on the comments made.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• Clarification if the internal workings of Templar Hotel public house would be altered

(Mr Jones responded and confirmed that any alterations would be brought back under reserved matters)

• The concerns expressed that the application did not give any re-assurances of the retention of the public house in view of the importance of the buildings heritage within the city

(Mr Jones responded and agreed to feed back these comments to the applicant)

• Clarification of the retail element of the application and whether or not  a Casino operator had been chosen

The Chair then invited questions and comments from Members to the Senior Planning Officer as part of her presentation of the outline planning application.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• Clarification of the percentage and mix of the site

(The Senior Planning Officer responded and outlined the land use and floor space as referred to in Appendix 1 of the report)

• Clarification that the scale and parameters of the outline planning application would not be altered

(This was confirmed by officers)

• The need for a condition to be imposed retaining the Templar Hotel public house and its internal fixtures in view of it’s rich history
  (Officers explained that the proposal was for a variation of a condition only to the outline consent and that the details of the proposals to the Templar Hotel pub could be controlled at the reserved matters stage)

Prior to determining the application, the Chair then invited comments from Members on the proposals.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• That the scheme appeared to be reasonable and an excellent addition for the city
• That the scheme provided the developer with a degree of flexibility
• That the Templar Hotel public house should be free standing and retain it’s identity

In concluding discussions, the Panel were of the opinion that the Templar Hotel public house should be retained and that it was noted that this issue would come back to a future meeting under reserved matters.

RESOLVED –

a) That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to grant Outline Planning Permission, subject to the specified conditions (and any others which might be considered appropriate) and following completing of a Section 106 Agreement Deed of Variation to bind the previous application (11/01000/OT) and the current application.

b) That in the circumstances where 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.