Agenda item

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer detailing an application for  Headingley Carnegie Stadium, Land at Weetwood Avenue and Land at Thorpe Lane as detailed above.

Members received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and received a pre application presentation on behalf of Leeds Rugby for the demolition of existing shared rugby/cricket stand and replacement shared North/South stand and demolition of existing Southern Terrace and replacement South Stand to Rugby Ground, St Michaels Lane, Headingley, the residential development for circa 40 dwellings at land off Weetwood Avenue, Weetwood and the development of circa 170 dwellings on land between Thorpe Lane and Bradford Road, Tingley.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application. Members had also attended a site visit prior to discussion of the item on all three sites.

The Head of Planning Services introduced the report and explained the ownership of the Weetwood and Tingley sites and how they related to the application to develop the North/South Stand and the South Stand at Headingley Stadium.

Members were shown a video of how the proposed stands would look.

Representatives of the developer, were in attendance and provided the following additional information:

·  That Headingley Stadium made significant contributions to the local economy and that these proposals were critical to securing the future of Test Match cricket when the staging agreement was considered in 2019. During Test matches 650 people are employed and that the Stadium, generates £4.8 million in visitor spending each year;

·  The residential sites at Tingley (171 dwellings) and Weetwood (46 dwellings) if approved would provide funding for and enable the development of the stands. The representative took the Panel through the details of the residential sites;

·  The development of the North / South Stand would meet ECB requirements to stage International Cricket. The developments as a whole would result in an increase in the capacity of the cricket ground and a reduction in capacity at the rugby ground;

·  The benefits to the community that the rugby and cricket clubs make through their charitable foundations; and

·  That the Rugby South stand would have to be built first followed by the dual North / South Stand

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

• The history behind Leeds Rugby’s ownership of the Tingley and Weetwood sites, the prices paid for the sites and the current values;
• The possibility for value engineering to reduce the costs of developing the stands;
• Traffic  in the area on match days and that work would be required to be done to mitigate against the effect of this;
• Noise on matchdays was considered and it was noted that the new stands would be designed to reduce the impact of crowd noise;
• Timings of the development and the reliance on the sale of the land at Tingley and Weetwood for housing in order to progress the stands. Furthermore it was confirmed that additional funding would also need to be found to complete the stands but that all money from the sale of the two residential sites would be used for the stands;
• The number of applications was discussed, Members commented that they would have preferred one application to encompass the re-development of the North / South Stand and the South Stand;
• Members commented that further work would need to be done in relation to the applications to build houses at Tingley and Weetwood and that the development at Tingley was too dense;
• Members noted that if the North/South Stand was re-developed there would still be no guarantee of international cricket after the 2019 staging agreement ends between Yorkshire CCC and the ECB;
• It was noted that the clubs undertake charitable work and that the stadium is an asset to Leeds. However Members commented that there were no obvious benefits to the residents of Tingley and Weetwood who would lose green belt land and gain more houses putting pressure on roads, schools and health centres; and
• It was confirmed that Leeds Rugby and Yorkshire CC had no other saleable assets.

The Panel then heard from the Weetwood Residents Association who objected to the proposals. Information put forward included:

• That Weetwood Residents Association supported developments at Headingley Stadium but not at the cost of losing valuable greenbelt;
• Allowing the development of the Weetwood site to fund the stadium would possibly be a breach of planning process; the residents association considered that this was not a circumstance exceptional enough to develop greenbelt;
• The development of the stands did not fairly and reasonably relate to the development of the greenbelt land and would not provide public amenity to Weetwood residents;
• If the developments were to proceed there is no guarantee of international cricket at Headingley; and
• That the proposals would need to be determined by the Secretary of State.

The Head of Planning Services read out three emails from ward members commenting on the proposals, these were from:

• Councillor Walshaw (Headingley) who highlighted concern over the design of the stadium and commented that work needs to be done to improve the flow of traffic around Headingley on matchdays and deal with noise;
• Councillor Dunn (Ardsley & Robin Hood), who raised concerns about the loss of green space in Tingley and likely traffic implications; and
• Councillor Renshaw (Ardsley & Robin Hood) who raised strong objections to the loss of green belt at Tingley and further pressure on infrastructure at Tingley.

Members further commented that they wanted to see world class sporting facilities in Leeds. However they felt this was an enabling application being used to contribute to facilities in Headingley and that the people of Tingley and Weetwood would feel little benefit and lose important green belt. Members recognised that these two sites were in the Draft Site Allocation Plan but not in phase 1 but that they were still greenbelt land. Besides this Members felt that much more work would need to be done to improve the layout of the residential developments.

Members responded to the questions featured at paragraph 6.23 of the submitted report as follows:

1. Members wished to see Headingley re-developed and were supportive of this taking place.  However the Panel had concerns about bringing forward development of the green belt at Weetwood and Tingley ahead of the conclusion of the site allocations process.
2. Members felt that they did not have enough information to comment on the design of the residential sites or Headingley Stadium. They did feel that there were too many dwellings on the Tingley site, that the apartments in the Weetwood scheme should be removed and that  careful consideration would need to be given to the relationship of the new south rugby stand to dwellings on St Michaels Lane.
3. Members were concerned about the loss of the urban green corridor at Weetwood and the impact this could have on the Conservation area.
4. Members felt careful consideration needs to be given to the highways surrounding the stadium but also the impact to highways, especially, Junction 28 of the M62, by building new houses at Tingley and Weetwood
5. The other issues members wished to raise at this stage were the importance of local people benefitting from any development  and also that flooding would need to be considered at the Tingley site . Finally Members considered that legal advice should be sought in relation to the “enabling development” issue with regards to both the Weetwood and Tingley sites

RESOLVED – That the contents of the report and presentations be noted.