Agenda item

 To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer on a pre-application for the erection of 152 apartments in a single building between 5 and 9 storeys with ground floor car parking located between Melbourne St and Lower Brunswick St, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed the Panel of a pre-application presentation for erection of 152 apartments in a single building between 5 and 9 storeys with ground floor car parking located between Melbourne Street and Lower Brunswick Street, Leeds.

Members attended the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the pre-application presentation and discussion.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

·  The site was currently home to the Marston Business Centre which was a two storey building.

·  The site was in a sustainable city centre location with easy access to transport, leisure/retail facilities and employment opportunities.

·  There would be 100% cycle storage provision and the site was close to the cycle super highway and proposed city centre cycle loop.

·  There would be non-allocated parking on site for up to 18 vehicles and 2 spaces for city car club parking for which tenants would receive two years free membership.  There would also be free metro bus provision.

·  Pedestrian entrances to the site.

·  Floor plans – these had been designed to minimise the number of north facing apartments.  All apartments met national space standards.

·  The proposed development would step down from 8 storeys to 6 storeys and the scale and massing reflected that of surrounding developments.

·  In summary it was felt that the proposals provided much needed residential accommodation in a suitable and sustainable location and that the scale and design was suitable.

·  With regard to affordable housing, the applicant was open minded to keeping this on-site.

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

·  Footpaths around the site would be widened to 2 metres to create a safer environment for pedestrians.  Concern was expressed regarding ground floor apartments and their relation to the footpaths.  It was reported that there was no commercial viability for alternative uses for the ground floor.

·  The size of the proposed building had been designed to fit in with the scale of buildings in the surrounding area.  To reach viability there also had to be a certain amount of units in the development.

·  It was not viable to convert the existing building to residential accommodation.

·  Concern regarding the scale and massing of the proposed development.

·  Concern regarding the lack of amenity space.

·  Members accepted that the site needed to be re-developed but that the proposals at this stage were not suitable or acceptable and the proposed design did not contribute an improvement to the area.

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

·  The site was suitable in principle for residential development.

·  There were concerns regarding the emerging scale and design of the development.

·  Concern that there was no amenity provision on site and the proposals did not respect the amenity of occupiers or surrounding properties.  There was some concern regarding the size of studio apartments.  It was felt that the proposed building was too large and did not enhance the surrounding area.

·  The mix of units was considered to be acceptable. 

·  Car parking provision – there was some concern as to whether 15% was acceptable in this location. The level of parking required more justification

RESOLVED – That the report, presentation and discussion be noted.