Agenda item

Further to minute 74 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 30^th October 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on a mixed use, multi-level development comprising the erection of 4 new buildings, with 744 residential apartments, 713sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (A1-A5, B1, D1, D2 use classes), car parking, landscaping and public amenity space, to consider the formal application

An appendix considered to be exempt under Access to Information Rule 10.4(3) and providing financial information accompanies the report

(report attached)

  Prior to considering this matter, Councillor Lewis left the meeting

Further to minute 74 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 30^th October 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on an application for a residential-led mixed use development at Sweet Street/Manor Road Holbeck, the Panel considered a further report setting out the formal application

  Accompanying the report was an appendix which contained exempt information and which was considered in private

  Plans, photographs, graphics, a model of the proposed development and sample materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought the redevelopment of a large brownfield site at the edge of Holbeck Urban Village

  Details of the buildings; the landscaping; public and private amenity areas and proposed materials were outlined to Panel.  A sun path diagram of the public space at different times of the day and year was shown, with Members being informed that most of the public realm would be in sun at lunchtime

  The apartment sizes of the 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings were broadly in line with the Leeds Standard, although the studios were smaller, at approximately 29 sqm in gross internal area

  The Panel heard representations from a representative of adjacent residents who attended the meeting and outlined concerns, which included:

·  the level of car parking proposed – 263 parking spaces for 744 apartments

·  the proximity of the Manor Road frontage to the neighbouring building

·  that detailed design issues needed further consideration

·  that low cost housing should be provided

The Panel then heard from the applicant’s agent.  Prior to her

submission to Panel, the Chair reminded her that in line with the legal advice provided on additional information sent directly to Panel Members, (minute 104 refers) the additional information which had been sent in respect of this application would be disregarded

  The applicant’s agent addressed the Panel and provided information which included:

·  the scheme was an improvement on the previously consented scheme for the site

·  that it complied with policy

·  that high quality accommodation in a variety of apartment sizes would be provided

·  that additional family accommodation had now been included

·  the site was in a highly sustainable location, well served by public transport and that the parking levels reflected this fact

·  that key worker units would be provided through the scheme, either on or off-site

The Chair then asked the public who were in attendance to withdraw

from the meeting to enable the Panel to consider information of a commercially sensitive nature

  Councillor R Procter left the meeting at this point

  A representative of the District Valuer was in attendance and explained the financial viability assessment he had carried out on the scheme and responded to questions and comments from the Panel.  It was noted that the model proposed was for the development to be sold to a single investor on completion and the units then leased

  Concerns were expressed that the development would only meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, when the Council’s policy was for level 4 to be met, with mixed views on this as a determining factor in granting planning permission when considered against specific energy/heat and sound performance matters

  In view of the time limited nature of the information in the viability assessment (due to potential changes in economic and market conditions), if minded to approve the application, the Deputy Area Planning Manager proposed a shorter timescale for the grant of planning permission than the normal 3 years.  Members were informed that the applicant had requested a period of 18 months, however it was the view of Panel that a 12 month planning consent was appropriate in this case

  Following consideration of the exempt information, the public were readmitted to the meeting, with the Panel proceeding to discuss the scheme, with the key issues relating to:

·  viability issues

·  detailed design issues, the extent of exposed concrete;  how the concrete would weather; the balcony treatment and that the intended railings were reminiscent of 1960s Local Authority flats; the size of the balconies, with concerns these were not large enough to make use of; the uninspiring design overall and that the City Centre should benefit from the best treatments and standards in terms of development. 

·  the need for the deletion of exposed concrete from the scheme; that a more sculptural form be considered for the buildings and that a more interesting and natural palette of materials be pursued

·  the possibility of Housing Leeds managing the units which were available for low cost rent.  The Chair allowed the applicant’s agent to respond to this point, with Members being informed that all of the units would be managed by the same organisation but that Housing Leeds could nominate people for the low cost flat units

·  concerns about the level of the S106 contributions being offered in terms of affordable housing provision

·  proposed parking levels.  The Transport Development Services Manager informed Members that the general parking policy for the City Centre was to try to reduce car ownership and that having considered the census data in the City and Hunslet Ward, this showed car ownership of 40%, with the level of parking proposed being just under that figure.  The site was located in a controlled parking area; was in a highly sustainable location and there were measures and funding to work with the Travel Plan Co-ordinator

·  the view that the building as proposed was not acceptable; was in the wrong location and had insufficient parking

The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  To defer determination of the application for one cycle to enable further negotiations between Officers and the applicant in terms of design; the viability issues and the low cost market flats offer within the S106 agreement

  Following consideration of this matter, Councillor C Gruen and Councillor P Gruen left the meeting