Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out pre-application proposals for a mixed use development comprising offices, residential, supporting A1, A3, A4 and D1 uses and public open space and to receive a presentation on behalf of the developer

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs including a 1951 photograph of the site; an historic painting of Holbeck; graphics; precedent images and a fly-through were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The Deputy Area Planning Manager introduced the proposals and referred to the number of proposed developments for Holbeck Urban Village including the Tower Works site which had been brought forward but had not progressed.  Reference was also made to the Holbeck Urban Village Planning Framework, which set out the urban design framework and key principles for development within Holbeck Urban Village (HUV) and the number of historic buildings within the area, several of which were Listed

  The Tower Works site was owned by the Homes and Communities Agency which had run a competition to develop the site, with Carillion Developments winning the competition and having now entered into pre-application discussions with Officers.  The parameters for the competition had referenced the existing planning permission for the site and the adopted planning guidance for the area in relation to massing; scale; connectivity and preserving the setting of the Listed Buildings

  Members were informed that an application proposal had also been received from the adjacent site owner, with pre-application discussions beginning to take place and that it was important that the developers of both sites worked collaboratively to ensure delivery of the planning objectives in the Holbeck Urban Village Planning Framework

  The Panel then received a presentation from a representative of the developers of the Tower Works site, with Members being provided with information on the proposals which included:

·  the mix of uses proposed, these being residential; flexible office space and a range of active uses, including shops, restaurants, cafes and bars, along with public open space

·  that nine buildings were proposed to be arranged around the  site

·  the provision of a main square area which would include a water feature

·  that 50% of the site would be Public Open Space and that the use of text within the floor plain would provide a history of the site to its visitors

·  the use of greenery which would be used vertically and horizontally

·  that to respect the Listed Buildings, the buildings on Globe Road would be kept to a lower level and that the original factory entrance would be used to access the site

·  the treatment of Water Lane, with the historic factory wall being continued and new building being sited above it

·  the residential accommodation and that this would be a mix of town houses and flats

In response to questions from Members, additional information was

provided relating to:

·  on-site parking.  This would be at a low level as the site was in a highly sustainable location and was close to public transport links.  Low level/minimal parking was specified in the HUV Planning Framework and to avoid vehicles coming into HUV, a multi-storey car park was proposed on the periphery of the village.  The Listed Building posed limitations in terms of providing an underground car park, as did the risk of flooding.  From agent feedback from the development at Granary Wharf, only 27% of residents had taken up the parking on this site, with the developers considering that people who would be interested in living on the site would be making a lifestyle choice not to have a car

·  energy efficiency.  That BREEAM  ‘excellent’ was being aimed for and that in terms of the provision of solar panels, the number of these to be provided would be that required to meet this standard

·  the relationship between blocks D and F and Verona Tower; that these buildings would step back to give the historic tower some breathing space and that a mini square would be created around Verona Tower, with building G benefitting from glazed walls to enjoy the views in this space

·  the Engine House and future uses for this.  It was noted this building was in Council ownership.  The developer’s representative stated that a number of uses were being considered for this building, including a micro-brewery and an art house cinema

Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following

key issues:

·  the attractiveness of much of the scheme, particularly at Globe Road and the use of the original entrance archway but concerns that the historic, listed towers were not being sufficiently respected within the scheme; that they were being crowded; that from some aspects, it would be difficult to glimpse views of them and from the canal view, any building on the adjacent site could obscure the towers entirely and that in previous discussions about the site, Members had stressed the importance of retaining views of the towers

·  the Globe Quay building and that this would be dwarfed by the surrounding buildings and that a less dense development which provided more space around the Towers would be more appropriate

·  the excellent use of brickwork in the scheme

·  the green credentials being aimed for and the importance of buildings in this area meeting high BREEAM standards

·  the use of green walls within the scheme which was welcomed as was the accommodation types, with some triplex units being provided

·  that the considerable attention given to the Globe Road frontage had not been sustained in respect of buildings inside the site

·  concerns about blocks G, J, K and L which were felt to create a closed in effect

·  land ownership and commercial matters and how these could be affected if a less dense development was proposed

·  that the low level of on site car parking provision must be justified, particularly for family sized units

The Panel considered the specific points Officers required

Members‘ comments on, as set out in the submitted report.  Prior to this, the Deputy Area Planning Manager highlighted that whilst ground floor active uses were generally supported by planning policy, the amount of A1 use was normally restricted.  The developer’s representative stated that the A1 use could be reduced to less than 372 sqm

  In response to the questions posed in the report, the Panel made the following comments:

·  that the mix of proposed uses were acceptable, in view of the comments made on behalf of the applicant about the extent of the A1 uses

·  that the scale and arrangement of the buildings were not appropriate, especially with regard to the listed towers and buildings and that further consideration needed to be given to these matters, in light of the detailed comments by Members

·  that Members were supportive of the emerging mix and standard of residential accommodation being proposed

·  to note Members’ concerns and views on the approach to car parking provision within the site and the need for accessibility improvements on Globe Road

The Deputy Area Planning Manager stressed the importance of the

pedestrian access being as good as it could be to accommodate greater pedestrian trips generated by the proposals, with Officers being of the view that the width of the Globe Road footpath was not wide as was desired and that there were aspirations to better connect this site to the surrounding area to the south

RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentation and the comments

now made