Agenda item

To receive a report of The Chief Planning Officer detailing a proposal for 215 Apartments, with ancillary ground floor commercial uses, located within a 16 storey block, at Land At Corner Of Whitehall Road And Springwell Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS12 1AW.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer present a pre-application proposal for 215 apartments with ancillary ground floor commercial uses, located within a 16 storey block on land at the corner of Whitehall Road and Springwell Road, Holbeck Leeds.

There had been a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the pre-application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  Reference was made to the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan and consultation with the Holbeck Neighbourhood Forum had seen support for the proposals.

·  A proposed layout of the site was shown.  Servicing access for commercial units would be from Springwell Road.

·  The highest part of the building would be 16 storeys and would be stepped down with landscaped roof terraces.

·  Design of the apartments – it was proposed that the apartments would not have corridors in order to utilise as much space as possible.  Work had been carried out with fire safety engineers with regards to the use of sprinkler systems which would counteract the loss of corridors as firebreaks.

·  The size of the proposed apartments was larger than compliance requirements.

·  Materials used on the elevations would include red brick, aluminium and glass panels.

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

·  The stone boundary wall on Whitehall Road would not be retained as there needed to be ground floor access to the street.

·  Trees on the rooftop terraces would be limited in size due to the size and depth of the planters.

·  The applicant had not previously built apartments without corridors.

·  There would be five percent affordable units within the development.

·  The large number of one bed apartments/studios – it was reported that this would provide alternatives to HMOs and those properties could be re-used for family housing.

·  There would be two lifts in different parts of the building.

·  There would be 22 apartments with access to the roof terraces.  Maintenance of these would the responsibility of the residents.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, the following was discussed:

o  Members agreed that the proposed use of the site for a predominantly residential scheme, PRS model of tenure and the mix of dwellings was appropriate.

o  Members agreed that the scale, height, design and form of the proposed development was appropriate for the location.  There were no concerns regarding the proposed appearance, use of materials or landscaping proposals.

o  With regard to the size of the accommodation on offer and the proposed layouts concern was expressed that the size of the majority of apartments was below recommended standards.  There was also further concern regarding the design of the apartments without corridors and fire safety implications.  It was asked whether there was scope to amend the design to achieve size standards and also felt that further assurance be sought regarding fire safety.

o  The level of car parking provided with the proposals was felt to be satisfactory.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.