Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer which requests that Members consider the pre-application presentations relating to the development of 982 houses on eight sites in Seacroft, Halton Moor and Osmondthorpe as part of Leeds City Council’s Brownfield Land Programme.

 

(Report attached)

The submitted report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members that as part of the Brownfield Land Programme 13 sites in Seacroft and Halton Moor/ Osmondthorpe had been selected for disposal for residential development via the Development Plans Panel. An information report was presented to North and East Plans Panel at its meeting on 7^th January 2016. Minute 134 refers

 

Members were informed that Keepmoat and Strata had now been selected as the Council’s development partners to deliver the development of the sites. Members noted that that a number of them were in close proximity to one another, the developers had chosen to group some of the original thirteen sites together to create eight distinct development sites. An overview plan was attached at appendix 1 of the submitted report. These eight sites, three in Halton and five in Seacroft had formed the basis of the pre-application discussions and a separate planning application was to be submitted for each site.

 

Members had visited all the sites on Monday 3^rd October 2016.

 

Representatives from Keepmoat and Strata were at the meeting.

 

A number of workshops and meetings had taken place with Ward Members and officers with public consultation events in both of the areas where development was proposed.

 

This report and the pre-application presentation related only to the housing proposals.

 

Cllr. Hayden Ward Member for Temple Newsam attended the Panel and told Members how excited she was about the scheme. She thanked Keepmoat and Strata for consulting with Members throughout the process on issues of roads, parking, connectivity of the community, promotion of walking and cycling, opportunities for employment and the need for social housing in the area.

 

She said that hopefully the development in the area would allow people to stay in the area either to downsize or for first time buyers who wished to stay near family and friends.

 

Cllr. Hayden informed the Panel that although her ward had the beautiful city park of Temple Newsam within it her ward was low on green spaces. On speaking to the community, older people spoke of a lake in the area and were glad that a pond would be re-introduced to the area along with more green spaces.

 

Cllr. Hayden expressed her concerns for flood risk areas but was hopeful that the scheme would improve the area lowering the risk of flooding and improving the lives of people in Temple Newsam and Killingbeck.

 

The representatives provided Members with a broad overview of common features to be used on all the sites:

·  Planning guidance and design complied with and was in accordance with ‘Neighbourhoods for Living’ and ‘Street Design Guide’

·  Compliance with space standards

·  Parking would be discrete

·  Layout had been designed to make cycling or walking through enjoyable

·  There would be shared surfaces with pocket parks and courtyard areas

·  Open spaces for children to play

·  Tailored house types to include bespoke house design for York Road site

·  The flood mitigation schemes to be used including the use of ponds some to be filled and some to be left empty. These would drain slowing into the existing beck to alleviate the risk of flooding. 

·  Materials for the dwellings would be a mix of red brick and render in keeping with the area

 

Members appreciated how much work had been done to comply with meeting space standards where possible, however they requested that all house types should comply with the space standards.

 

Cllr. Selby Ward Member for Killingbeck and Seacroft reiterated Cllr. Hayden’s comments saying how excited he and his fellow Ward Councillors were about the developments within their Ward. He also expressed concerns in relation to flooding but was happy with the green spaces proposed.

 

Members viewed presentations from both the developers on each of the sites.

 

Site A – Cartmell Drive

·  Existing constraints with the sweep of the road and the green corridor of trees.

·  As many houses as possible to front onto the trees or onto shared surfaces

·  Mixed property sizes

·  Discrete parking between gables

·  Chimneys on some properties as a characteristic of Leeds

·  2 units of affordable housing of the same style and design as other properties

 

After the first presentation Members asked a series of questions that they wished to be addressed as standard for each of the development sites the responses were as follows:

·  Renewables had been looked at for all the sites with insulation being the first priority with photo voltaic panels now being looked at.

·  The ponds would be designed with a shallow slope towards them with information boards around the ponds to mitigate any risks of accidents

 

Site B - Rathmell Road / Kendal Drive

·  Topography was challenging with closeness to the road

·  Intimate courtyard areas break up the development

·  Small Pocket park within the site

·  Mix of 3 and 2 bed houses

·  4 affordable houses within the site

·  Some properties to be 3 storeys due to change in ground levels

·  Parking to be located between gables

·  Some properties to have chimneys

 

Site C – Wykebeck Mount

·  Railway track runs along the northern corridor of the site, a ribbon park would run along this corridor

·  Mix of 2 and 3 bed properties

·  8 affordable houses within the site

 

Site D – York Road

·  The site has a south facing aspect

·  School close by

·  This was to be a flagship site of 3 and 4 bed properties there would be no affordable housing on this site

·  The properties would be a mix of scales with garages located to side of gables

·  Properties would have bay windows with vines growing up the sides

·  Bins and cycle stores would be located to the rear of the properties with access through the garages

·  Some trees to be retained with more planting of trees and hedges round the site

·  The gate house of the manor which originally stood on this site is to remain and will be extended as a family dwelling

 

Site E – Seacroft Crescent

·  The right of way through the centre of this site is to be retained

·  A shared green space would form the centre of this site

·  2 and 3 bed properties with some affordable housing within the site

·  The streetscene has been animated to factor in the topography of the site

·  A frontage had been created to partially hide a tower block located close to the site

·  The surfaces for the development will be of tarmac and block paving

 

Site F – Brooklands sites

·  This is a larger site with a mine shaft within the region

·  A green space would be created over the mine shaft

·  Smaller areas of open space proposed to the northern side of Brooklands Avenue with smaller pockets breaking up the blocks of development on the ‘panhandle’ of land to the south western part of the site

·  Some trees to be retained on this site with new trees planted to soften the streetscene

·  New road with bus route is proposed to link South Parkway, Brooklands Avenue, Brooklands Drive and Bishops Way. This would link to the new school.

·  Dwellings would be of beige bricks to compliment houses opposite this site

 

The Panel requested that the developers consider play areas as well as green spaces

 

Site G – Kentmere Approach

·  The development is proposed to be on two ‘plateaus’ due the steep change in levels

·  The woodland area is to be retained with walkways through

·  Vehicular and pedestrian access would cut through the length of the site

·  The site would incorporate lanes and shared courtyards with a central green space

·  Mix of 2,3 and 4 bed properties

·  8 affordable properties which would be 2 and 3 bed properties with no difference in design and within space standards. These were shown to be clustered together in one area of the development

·  Most of the properties would have two parking spaces  with the exception of the 2 bed ‘Livorno’ properties which would have one space with additional visitor parking close to these dwellings

 

Members expressed concerns that the affordable housing was located together in one area of the development and requested that this be addressed so that the affordable housing was interspersed throughout the site.

 

Site H – Bishops Way

·  This site is within close proximity of a local high school

·  At the northern gateway to the site close to the school there would be three storey houses which would front onto the road leading to the school entrance

·  Central green space leading towards the school

·  Properties to front onto central green space

·  Green spaces interspersed throughout the site

·  Mix of 2,3, and 4 bed properties

·  6 affordable properties set in a cluster (as per Site G Members requested that the affordable properties be interspersed throughout the site)

·  A bus and cycle link to run through the development towards the school

·  The  properties would be of varying heights and scale for rhythm of streetscene

 

Members discussed the properties which would front onto the road leading towards the school and requested that these properties have an appropriate wall at the front rather than a timber rail.

 

The representatives were requested to address a number of points raised by Members before the applications are brought back to Panel including:

·  Use of photo voltaic panels and other renewable energy technologies

·  The form and location of play areas

·  Materials for hard surfaces

·  Flood risk alleviation

·  Boundary treatment to ‘Livorno’ units

·  All affordable properties to be interspersed throughout all sites

·  All properties to be within guidance of space standards