Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer on a position statement for the demolition of vacant depot building; Construction of a new primary / secondary school; footbridge crossing Barrack Road; multi-use game areas(MUGA); sport pitches; hard and soft landscaping; Car/cycle parking, Alterations to site access; Landscaping and boundary treatments at Dixons Trinity Chapeltown, Leopold Street, Chapeltown

(Report attached) 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided the Panel with a position statement with regards to the demolition of vacant depot building; construction of a new primary/secondary school; footbridge crossing Barrack Road; multi-use games area (MUGA); sports pitches; hard and soft landscaping; car/cycle parking; alterations to site access; landscaping and boundary treatments at Dixons Trinity, Leopold Street, Chapeltown.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted included the following:

·  The proposal was for the building of a through school with 420 primary places and 560 secondary places at the site on either side of Barracks Road, Chapeltown.

·  The application had recently been re-publicised due to amendments to the proposals including the introduction of a footbridge.

·  The public consultation phase was ongoing.

·  Further issues had been raised by Ward Members.  These included the height of the proposed building, highways concerns and relationship to existing residential properties.  Whilst it was recognised there was a need for more school provision it was felt that a better solution could be found.

·  There was a need to progress the application as it was hoped to open the school in September 2019.

·  The option to have a two building solution was dismissed by the applicant.

·  Proposed layout of the site and buildings, including parking areas were shown.

·  Access arrangements.

·  Layout for the proposed footbridge.

·  Protected trees – there was discussion to retain some of these on site and those on the boundary would largely be retained.

·  The building design would have recessed areas to give the impression of bays and break down the apparent massing of the building.

·  Internal layouts were explained.

·  Relation to the proposed adjacent residential development.

·  The closest point between the school and proposed residential development was approximately 14.5 metres and was felt compliant in terms of this.

·  There would be no overshadowing of the residential properties but some shading of garden areas on an evening.

·  Highways mitigation works including the introduction of crossings and keep clear markings.

A local resident addressed the Panels with objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  It was felt that the proposals were insensitive and had been developed without proper consultation.

·  A three storey building was out of proportion to the residential character of the neighbourhood.

·  There would be shadowing of gardens.

·  Play areas would be facing residential properties and cause disturbance.

·  Many of local road users and pedestrians in the vicinity were likely to be vulnerable and there was already significant traffic and parking issues in the area.

·  The justification for the loss of greenspace was not convincing.

·  Many of the objections would be withdrawn if plans were amended to have separate primary and secondary schools on separate sites.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  It was recognised there was a need for school provision in the area.

o  It was felt that children travelling from Harehills and other places would be brought by car due to busy roads that could be dangerous to cross.

o  Concern regarding the building overlooking residential properties.

o  Traffic management and responsibility for managing this.

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

·  A background of the Dixons Academy trust and its school provision in Leeds and Bradford.

·  The associated benefits of having a through school with primary and secondary provision together.

·  The temporary school provision on site had already been opened due to exceptional circumstances.  There was a clear need for a permanent school.

·  The design had evolved to compliment the proposed adjacent housing scheme.

·  Staggered start and finish times would ease potential highways and parking problems.

·  The NPPF supported the provision of new state schools.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  Alternative layouts had been considered.  The northern site had challenges including the high number of protected trees and changing land levels.

o  The site had been designed to give the primary aged children the maximum outdoor space without having to cross the road/footbridge at any time.

o  Access and arrangements for community use of facilities.

o  Consultation – letters had been sent to all local residents, Ward Members and the local MP.  There had been a public consultation event which was widely advertised.

o  There would be difficulties to move or alter the proposed footprint of the building due to protected trees and changes in levels.  This could increase the height in places and have a further impact on residential properties.

o  The closest point of the building to housing was 14 metres which was within policy guidelines.

o  Senior staff and management staff would manage traffic and parking. There was potential for arrangements for dropping off points to be aligned with the proposed footbridge.

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

·  Landscaping to the west of the site – this was already landscaped and it was proposed to retain as many trees in this area to soften the impact of the development.  There could be scope to slightly adjust the position of the building.

·  Concern regarding parking at school start and finish times.  It was acknowledged that there would be problems at peak times but there were wide carriageways and there would be introduction of traffic regulation orders where necessary.

·  Members gave the following responses to questions outlined in the report:

o  The principle of development at the site was considered to be acceptable.

o  With regard to the design approach, the main area of concern related to the massing of the school building and its relationship to the boundary with the proposed housing development.  It was requested that this relationship be re-visited and ways be looked at to mitigate the impact including looking at revising the siting of the building and planting and acoustic fencing to the common boundary.  Concern was also expressed in respect of the treatment of the front elevation of the building.

o  It was requested that consideration be given to swapping the primary and secondary playgrounds so that the latter was adjacent to the housing scheme.

o  Proposals for the footbridge were supported and it was requested that the provision of a drop off/collection area on that part of the site to the west of Barrack Road be explored.  It was also requested that further information be provided in respect of Traffic Regulation Orders in the vicinity of the Leopold Street entrance.

o  Members were content with the proposals in respect of tree retention and removal.

o  It was requested that the application be brought back to Panel for determination.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.