Agenda item

Further to minute 198 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 5^th June 2014, where Panel was presented with pre-application proposals for a development at Sweet Street LS11, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in relation to proposals for a mixed-use, multi-level development comprising the erection of 4 new buildings with 744 residential apartments, 713 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A5, B1, D1, D2 use classes), car parking, landscaping and public amenity space

(report attached)

  Further to minute 198 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 5^th June 2014, where Panel considered pre-application proposals for a residential-led mixed use development at Sweet Street, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of the proposals.  An exempt supplementary report which provided financial viability information had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting

  Plans, drawings, photographs, graphics and sample materials were displayed at the meeting. It was noted that following the pre-application presentation in June 2014, Members had visited two residential schemes built by the applicant in Salford and Manchester

  Officers presented the report and informed Members that revisions to the scheme had been made, with the 13 storey building being reduced to 11 storeys in height and the 12 storey block now being proposed to be sited opposite The Mint building. The lower buildings would be sited to the south of the public realm to maximise sunlight in these areas, with the taller blocks around the other edges of the public space

  In terms of unit sizes, Members were informed these were as had been viewed in Manchester and Salford; the number of studios within the scheme had been reduced and the amount of 3 bed units had been increased from 5 to 10

  The proposed materials would be brickwork, concrete, acid-etched screening and bronzed balcony railings

  At this point, having previously resolved to exempt the public the Panel considered the financial information contained in the exempt supplementary report, in private.  A representative of the District Valuer was in attendance to respond to Members’ queries and comments

  The main issues discussed in respect of the exempt information included:

·  the reasons why the development was unviable

·  the nature of the development, in that following construction it would be sold to a single investor and the units subsequently leased, so generating profit

·  that details of who purchased the land should be provided

·  the approach taken by the DV to financial viability assessments, and concerns that this varied across the 3 plans panels.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that training by the DV would be arranged for Members of Plans Panels

·  that developing the site for residential use would ease pressure on greenfield sites

·  the differences between developing to level 3 or level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the need for better explanations to be provided in reports. However, Level 4 should be the objective in accordance with the Leeds Standard

·  that the proposals would not ease the pressure on accommodation for existing residents within the City and Hunslet Ward

·  the need for high quality to be provided on a scheme in this location which would ensure the desirability of the units, but not at a cost to the Council in terms of reduced S106 contributions

·  the extent of what could be taken into account when considering financial viability

·  the need for figures to be provided on the value of the development when built and when fully let

Following consideration of the exempt information, the public were

readmitted to the meeting, with Panel proceeding to discuss other elements of the scheme, which included:

·  the level of car parking being proposed and the need to demonstrate that sufficient car parking was being provided

·  cycle parking and the need for secure cycle spaces to be provided

·  whether a wind analysis had been undertaken.  Members were informed that a wind study had been submitted which had been independently assessed and declared sound

·  the design of the balconies and that glass balconies as seen in Manchester should be provided

·  the need for improvements to the public amenity space and for the balconies to be of sufficient proportions to ensure they could be well used.  The possibility of incorporating sliding panels was suggested which could help in increasing the usability of the balconies

·  concern about the use of concrete and that the finish of the scheme was ordinary and uninspired

·  the need for electric vehicle charging points to be included

·  the need for the liveability of the scheme to be considered; the increase in renting rather than home ownership and that facilities were required to support this, in terms of provision of recreation and education facilities in the City Centre

In response to the specific questions raised in the report, the following

responses were provided:

·  agreement that the proposed predominantly residential scheme was appropriate for this City Centre brownfield site

·  regarding the proposed mix of flat units, to note the mixed views on this, although the majority view was the mix and size are appropriate

·  that further work was required on the general siting of the buildings, provision of landscaping and public realm and provision of active street frontages

·  in respect of the revised height of the buildings and revised distribution of building heights around the scheme, in general this was considered to be acceptable but there were concerns about the lower blocks in the middle of the site; the amount of amenity space which would be available and the extent of shadowing to the POS, as seen on the sun path diagram displayed at the meeting

·  that the proposed design and architectural treatment and materials were not acceptable

·  that further information was required to convince Members that the proposal would give appropriate space between buildings and not have significantly adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring properties

·  that Members were unsure on the information provided that the development would provide accommodation of an appropriate size, outlook and sufficient natural light

·  that further information was needed on the financial viability appraisal

·  that further details were required about parking to justify the low level of car parking proposed in the scheme

The Chief Planning Officer accepted the amount of work required to

bring this scheme forward but stated that if the applicant worked with the Council, a successful scheme on the site could be envisaged

RESOLVED – To note the report and the comments now made

During consideration of this matter, Councillor R Procter and Councillor

D Blackburn left the meeting