Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the latest position on an application for 312 dwellings including new open space and associated works

(report attached)

  Further to minute 100 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 11^th December 2014, where Panel considered pre-application proposals for a residential development at Low Fold, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on the formal planning application for these proposals.  A supplementary report providing an update on highways issues, flood risk and noise, air quality and industrial odour implications was considered alongside the main report

  Plans, graphics, precedent images and sample materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and outlined the context of the application in relation to other developments and proposals in the surrounding area

  Members were informed that although a new bridge link did not form part of the application, the developer was keen to provide this as it would provide good links to New Dock and had the potential to unlock other development sites in the vicinity.  In order to provide this, a lower level of affordable housing was proposed than the 5% which would be expected on this site.  The view of Officers was that a lower level of affordable housing could be justified on this site in view of the development benefits which would flow from the provision of the bridge link

  The scheme proposed 312 dwellings - 160 of them being flats – in a series of 20 individual blocks in a mixed palette of materials.  Detailed landscaping proposals had been provided which were key to place making

  Detailed design issues were highlighted and included:

·  access routes

·  landscaping, including a ‘fold’ feature which would be in some parts a decorative function and in others, a practical one, i.e. forming a seating area

·  connectivity

·  car parking

·  sustainability features

·  the provision of a new type of back to back dwelling which included a lightwell in each house, running through the building to provide good levels of natural light

·  materials, which would include fibre cement panels; metal cladding; mesh cladding; blackened timber cladding and natural coloured timber cladding

In terms of the information provided in the supplementary report, it was

confirmed that, in principle and subject to a phased approach to the development, the Environment Agency would be willing to withdraw their objection to the scheme, subject to appropriate conditions

In relation to air quality, noise and industrial odour, the Council’s

Environment Protection Team was satisfied with the modelling assessment submitted by the applicant in relation to stack emissions from the nearby Allied Glass works and subject to conditions to address issues of potential noise nuisance and air pollution, Officers were of the view that the amenities of the future residents would be adequately protected

  On the issue of highways, a range of measures had been set out which would be required if the bridge was not provided.  In terms of deliveries and how these would be managed, Members were informed that a layby at the bottom of the service road would be used for on-line retailers/supermarket drop offs and would not impact on the highway network 

  No visitor car parking would be provided on the site; there would be a need to carry out a survey in respect of off-site car parking and then re-survey as part of a Section 106 Agreement, with additional Traffic Regulation Orders to be funded by the applicant if these were required to address issues of inappropriate parking.  In terms of residents parking, basement car parks would be sited under each block, with residents purchasing their parking space at the time they purchased their home, with it being envisaged people would purchase the parking space which was nearest to their home.  On the issue of the basement car parking, an error in the submitted supplementary report was corrected, with Members being informed that 45m was the worse case scenario for travel distances between a basement car parking space and the car park exits

  In terms of disabled access, steps had been removed from several locations to provide level access/circulation within the site.  However steps did not feature on the north western pedestrian route due to the challenge of dealing with the steep site gradients.  The applicant had been requested to explore alternative solutions to providing acceptable level access, including a possible connection through the adjacent Rose Wharf site

  In view of the range of materials proposed and the non-standard construction process, the Chair allowed the applicant and the scheme architect to address the Panel

  Members were provided with information of the following matters:

·  the construction process using the Passivhaus principles whereby the units were constructed off site

·  the technological process involved in assembling the materials which meant that the amount of material waste on site was reduced

·  the timber panelling; that a company in Scandinavia would produce the larch panelling and it would have a 60 year guarantee

·  the lightwells which would be 2-3m deep and 4-5m long

·  the importance of the connection of this development with Leeds Dock and that the bridge was key in achieving this

Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following

matters:

·  the lightwells; how these would work; the amount of light they would let in and possibility of producing a model to better understand this element

·  whether the basement space would incorporate laundry and/or gym facilities.  The applicant stated this space would be required for car parking

·  the possibility of introducing retail or leisure uses into the development.  The applicant stated that the amenity space would include a 400m running track and informal gym space but that in this location there would be little through traffic and any retail facility would only serve the people on the site and was therefore unlikely to be viable

·  concerns about the cladding proposed and the need to know the guarantees the applicant would agree to in respect of the materials

·  the security of what was a large, open site; the need to consider personal safety and whether CCTV would be installed.  Members were informed that natural surveillance would be the main deterrent; there were no open spaces which were not overlooked and there would be a caretaker on site.  The need to see how the management agreement was drawn up was raised.  Members were informed that a Community Interest Company would be established to enable residents to take responsibility for their community

·  the reduced level of affordable housing being proposed and that in a development of this size, 8 units was not sufficient and concerns that Members were continually being asked to agree to reduced levels of affordable housing

·  the lack of visitor parking and the need for a sum of money to be set aside and used if TROs were required.  The Transport Development Services Manager stated there were concerns that some visitors would park on East Street or Richmond Hill and that a pot of money may need to provide physical measures and not solely TROs to resolve any adverse highway impact

·  the possibility of incorporating some visitor parking at the southern end of the development

·  the need to use the black cladding carefully and possibly as a defining instrument to avoid areas of the site looking bleak

·  the distance of schools and health facilities from the site, with the Deputy Area Planning Manager stating that the nearest primary and high schools were a ten minute walk, albeit across East Street, with shops, a medical practice and a pharmacy also within a ten minute walk

·  the treatment to the banking alongside the river and the need to ensure the area was stable and that works carried out were in accordance with the Leeds FAS

·  the need for more work to be carried out on some of the blocks of flats and that better drawings were required, in particular to the East Street elevation

·  the lateness of the supplementary report and the important information it contained in respect of the issue of the bridge link and the importance of the bridge, especially for residents in the nearby Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Ward as this would provide an improved pedestrian connection into the City Centre

The Deputy Area Planning Manager apologised for the lateness of the

supplementary report but stated that discussions on the scheme had been ongoing up until the day before the meeting.  In terms of the bridge, the applicant’s position had not changed since they first presented the scheme to Members in December 2014.  Officers had now concluded that the bridge was not essential in planning terms as there were options to improve connectivity without it.  However, it was a material planning consideration that the bridge was being offered but with a reduced level of affordable housing and it would be for Panel to reach a decision on this matter

  The Transport Development Services Manager stated that the bridge had a strategic purpose in respect of other development sites and had significant benefits for the site in terms of off road cycling and pedestrian routes to the City Centre as well as to other sites, however this was a plan-led requirement rather than a strategic transport-led requirement

  The Chief Planning Officer outlined the issue regarding the bridge and noted that many Members had expressed strong views about the level of affordable housing being proposed.  The developer was clear what his preferred position was but that would result in a trade off in respect of the affordable housing units.  Officers had concluded that with some improvements for crossing East Street the bridge was not essential for the site.  However, it would provide the opportunity to plan a larger part of Leeds, i.e. to re-model the South Bank and then create further development and so the bridge was a defining feature which could provide confidence to developers

  In response to the specific issues raised in the report, Members provided the following comments:

·  that a residential scheme was appropriate for this edge of City Centre brownfield site

·  that the proposed mix of house and flat units was appropriate for this edge of City Centre location

·  that in general the proposed layout, heights, design and architectural treatment were acceptable however it was noted there were some concerns about the materials proposed

·  that the proposal would provide appropriate high quality landscaped public realm, a good standard of private amenity space, biodiversity opportunities and appropriate landscaped riverside setting

·  that on balance in the context of a densely built edge of City Centre location, the proposal would give appropriate space between buildings and that the new dwellings would feature an appropriate level of amenities in terms of daylight; sunlight; outlook and privacy

·  that the proposal represented a highly sustainable development in terms of its wider environmental benefits, in particular its energy efficient construction and ability to generate on-site renewable energy

·  that the provision of a river bridge in lieu of a 2.5% reduction in the normal affordable housing requirement in this case was not agreed to by the majority of the Panel.  The possibility of reserving some land for a bridge to be provided in the future which could be funded from a range of developments was suggested

The Chair invited representatives of the applicant to comment on this

issue.  Members were informed that the offer of 5% affordable housing and the off-site highway works remained; that the site was a challenging one; that what was being proposed was a product which had not been delivered before and that the scheme would set many precedents around how to develop a brownfield site.  The importance of creating a development where people wanted to live was stressed and that the South Bank regeneration would add to the attraction of this City Centre development.  In terms of affordable housing, the numbers suggested were based on 3 bed houses but that more affordable housing could be delivered on the site albeit in smaller units

  In view of these comments, the Chief Planning Officer asked if Members wished Officers to discuss affordable housing numbers in a different mix, with the Chair noting there was opportunity for further negotiation on the affordable housing.  The high quality of the proposals was also noted

  RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentations and the comments now made

  During consideration of this matter, Councillor J Lewis, Councillor C Campbell; Councillor C Gruen; Councillor P Gruen, Councillor Flynn and Councillor Latty left the meeting