Agenda item

Further to minute 175 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 16^th April 2015, where Panel received a pre-application presentation on the proposals, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application in respect of a proposed residential and commercial development comprising 72 dwellings, A1/A2/B1 flexible space at ground floor, associated covered parking area and landscaping.  The report is accompanied by an appendix classed as exempt as it contains financial information

(report attached)

  Further to minute 175 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 16^th April 2015, where Panel considered pre-application proposals for a mixed use development in Holbeck Urban Village, Members considered a further report setting out the formal application.   Appended to the report was an appendix which contained detailed financial information which Panel had resolved to consider in private

  Plans, photographs, drawings, graphics and artist’s impressions were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for a major mixed used scheme, comprising 72 dwellings; commercial space and retail space: car parking and landscaping on a brownfield site within the setting of several listed buildings and the Holbeck Conservation Area

  Key details of the proposals were outlined and included:

·  parking provision; the inclusion of a covered parking area in the middle of the site providing cycle storage and 46 car parking spaces although 17 of these were required to be retained for existing tenants of adjacent offices

·  the highly sustainable location of the site

·  the accommodation would cater for families

·  the energy efficient features of the scheme

·  the landscaping and public realm features of the proposals

·  vehicular and pedestrian access routes

·  the retention and repositioning of the popular Wonderwood feature

·  the palette of materials which was predominantly red brick with Corten steel features

·  the massing of the proposals which was considered to be appropriate for this site, particularly in view of the mix of building heights in the area

·  space standards and that the proposals exceeded space standards set out in both the Leeds Standard and the national standard

The Panel discussed design elements of the scheme, with the main

issues being raised relating to:

·  air quality issues.  Members were informed that additional ventilation measures would be provided to the internal car park, with these being controlled by condition

·  building heights with concerns that a precedent could be set for future developments.  Officers advised that the proposals were for a 7 storey building fronting David Street with the lower, 3 – 4 storey town houses next to the Round Foundry site.  The street views which had been provided and which showed the development in the existing context were outlined to Members.  Whilst the listed Matthew Murray House adjacent to the site and modern offices on the opposite side of David Street,were lower in height, it was the view of Officers that the height of that building did not need to be retained in the proposed scheme.  The wider area comprised a variety of building heights, including buildings of a similar scale or taller than that proposed, and it was considered that the views of the proposed scheme in this wider context were acceptable

·  car parking, particularly around safety and security.  The Chair invited the applicant’s architect to address Members with the Panel being informed that the car park was fully secure; that it had four access points which would be controlled by the residents; that the building would be managed constantly and that the car park would be covered by CCTV

·  the chimney features of the building; their prominence and differing views about the success of these in the overall scheme.  The applicant’s architect advised that the shape and size of the chimney features reflected the capacity of the lifts they encased and provided a reference to the history of the area

·  privacy issues to the town houses.  Members were informed that the use of landscaping and changes in levels would create a ‘zone’ along the front doors of the town houses to indicate the areas which were not public realm

Having resolved to discuss the financial information in private, the

public were asked to withdraw from the meeting at this point

  The Chair welcomed a representative of the District Valuer who was attending for this application and the following one (minute 49 refers)

  Members were advised that the affordable housing requirement on this site was for 4 units.  The applicant indicated this was not financially viable, with 3 units being offered.  Members were asked to consider this offer, which was not policy compliant, and if in agreement to indicate whether this provision should be on-site or be a commuted sum

  The representative of the District Valuer explained the process which had been adopted in assessing the financial viability of the scheme and outlined his conclusions

  A detailed discussion took place with the main issues considered relating to:

·  the range of abnormals used to consider costings

·  the requirement for quality schemes

·  the likely popularity of the development and related assumptions about the level of developer risk and return on investment being sought

·  the need for 4 units (3.6 of average value) to be provided

At this point, the public were re-admitted to the meeting

Members continued to discuss the proposals with further points being

raised in respect of:

·  the small difference between what was required under policy and what was being offered with concerns this showed a degree of poor judgement on behalf of the applicant

·  car parking levels with concerns that 29 spaces was insufficient

·  the affordable housing contribution and that Officers should be asked to negotiate a contribution of 5% of the total number of units proposed, with some preference for this being, subject to discussions with Housing and Ward Members, in the form of a commuted sum with the proceeds going to the local or adjacent Wards

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for

approval, subject to the specified conditions set out in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate), and further discussions on the affordable housing provision, with 5% being sought on site or in lieu of this, Officers to negotiate an equivalent off site contribution in discussion with Housing colleagues in the local area and following completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following additional matters:

·  affordable housing provision of 5% either on site or equivalent off site sum

·  access and maintenance of publicly accessible public realm areas

·  a Travel Plan monitoring and evaluation fee of £2500.00

·  a contribution to the sustainable travel fund of £36,500.00 as detailed in the Travel Plan

·  employment and training opportunities for local people

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