Agenda item

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report detailing a Pre–application presentation for the residential–led development comprising five towers ranging from 12 to 41 storeys, ground floor commercial uses and new public realm at land bounded By Bridge Street, New York Road, Regent Street and Gower Street, Sheepscar , Leeds, LS2.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation for a residential-led development comprising five towers ranging from 12 to 41 storeys, ground floor commercial uses and new public realm at land bounded by Bridge Street, New York Road, Regent Street and Gower Street, Sheepscar, Leeds, LS2.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this pre-application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel and highlighted a number of issues in relation to the proposals which included the following;

·  An introduction which included details of the emerging proposals for the second phase of the development

·  Information in respect of the existing planning permissions at the site

·  Details with regard to the Council’s tall building strategy and building massing

·  Information with regard to the proposed layout of the site

·  An explanation as to the proposed use of the site whish was proposed to have four principal components, buildings which included a hotel, residential apartments, an area of public realm across different levels including communal gardens and basement parking. 

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

·  Members raised concern with the proposed height of the towers, particularly the tallest which was in the region of 41 storeys(129 metres tall) and felt that further information was required in order that they could understand the impact of a structure of this height. Members were informed that in respect of wind issues a series of desktop testing had taken place and that dependent upon the outcome of discussions at the Panel meeting today further extensive testing would be undertaken on a model in a wind tunnel, Members were also informed that a lot of work had already been undertaken at this stage by moving back some of the massing from the road and the introduction of canopies. Members asked that further information be provided to officers and panel members in respect of the impact of wind on the buildings.

·  Members felt that this development provided an opportunity for involving local communities and providing landscaping that would be an asset to the area. In response the applicant advised Members that the development would include alternative office space that would be ideal for local start-up businesses and would hopefully create more employment opportunities both locally and more broadly across the City including small businesses such as cafes. In terms of the landscaping comment the applicant advised Members that they would look at the landscaping at Sovereign Square as a study for their development.

·  Members also asked about conservation, particularly (i) flooding levels, (ii) Lady Beck which was currently culverted and (iii) the possibility of reopening Marsh Lane Station, the applicants in response to (i) advised Members that they had consulted the Environment Agency with regard to flood levels although they were not certain whether the Agency figures were post or prior the Boxing Day floods, however they would make sure that they would have a scheme that was robust in respect of flooding, with regard to (ii) there were no plans to reopen the Beck and (iii) Marsh Lane had not been discussed but it could be looked at as part of the overall level of contribution. 

·  Members asked if the fascia of a bridge over Bridge Street could be restored to improve its appearance, the applicants confirmed they would look at this.

·  Members queried the rationale for the mix of residential units and particularly the amount of one bedroom apartments, members were advised that all of the apartments would meet or exceed the targets identified in the Leeds Standard and National Standards and the applicant would provide a housing needs assessment with the application to demonstrate that the mix is appropriate for the locality. 

·  Members raised the number of car parking spaces required for the development and the rationale used to arrive at the current predicted requirement of approximately 340 spaces. During discussions on this point it was acknowledged that upto some 1000 spaces could form part of the development in accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking guidelines although it was unlikely this would be the number requested. It was agreed that this would be looked at in greater detail as part of the Transport Statement as would the pick-up and drop off point for the hotel which Members felt was not ideally located. 

·  Members had a discussion in respect of the Public Realm aspects of the developments particularly the inability to walk through the area without using either lifts or stairs and concerns were raised about how accessible the site would be for all and Members felt that the Council’s Access Officer should look at this aspect of the development , Members felt that the Public Realm elements were key and there was also a discussion in respect of the width of the public realm at the centre and the sun path, it was suggested that a slope with a gradual gradient could be considered and resolve some of the access issues. 

·  Members asked that when providing photographs from different locations to provide an example of the visual impact of the tower developments then these should be consistent with the key views identified in the Council’s Tall Building Strategy not just those preferred by the Developer.

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  They felt that the proposed use was acceptable in principle

·  They felt that the massing of the buildings was appropriate, subject to detailed design, the outcome of the wind tests and associated information back to Members in respect of the high buildings.

·  They felt that they could support the emerging approach to the public realm within the site , subject to more information in respect of public realm access and more detail in respect of car parking requirements and consideration of a possible gradient as opposed to lifts and stairs.

·  They felt that they could support the requirement for improvements to be made to the A64 underpass immediately to the South East of the site.

·   They felt that in respect of the emerging housing mix they wanted it demonstrated that the mix is appropriate for the locality.

RESOLVED – To note the details of the pre-application and thanked the developers for their attendance.