Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for planning permission for demolition of existing buildings; repositioning of Skinner Street; and erection of a mixed use multi-level development comprising a 46 storey building providing Use Class C3 Build to Rent apartments with amenity space and flexible Class E at ground floor level; two buildings for Use Class E offices with flexible Use Class E space at basement and ground floor level; with associated infrastructure and basement car parking, hard and soft landscaping and public open space.

 

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of existing buildings, repositioning of Skinner Street; and erection of a mixed-use multi-level development comprising a 46 storey building providing Class C3 Build to Rent apartments with amenity space and flexible Class E at ground floor level; two buildings for Use Class E Offices with flexible Use Class E space at basement and ground floor level; with associated infrastructure and basement car parking, hard and soft landscaping and public open space, on land west of Lisbon Street, north of Wellington Street, east of Cropper Gate and south of Westgate/A58M, Leeds.

 

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

 

·  All existing buildings on the site would be demolished.

·  Views of the surrounding areas were displayed.

·  Details of proposals and applications on surrounding sites.

·  Members were broadly supportive of the massing and design when the pre-application was presented to Panel.

·  There would be a need to move Skinner Street at the northern edge due to the positioning of new buildings.

·  Servicing arrangements for the development.

·  There would be a central landscaped area surrounded by trees which would also include areas for play.

·  The ground floor of the residential building would have space for a café and a spill out area.

·  There would be landscaping on the periphery of the site.

·  The detailed landscape design would be subject to condition.

·  There would be basement parking underneath the residential building with space for cycle storage.

·  The office building frontage would be set back from Grove Street to give a double width pedestrian environment.

·  There would be opportunity for a roof terrace at first floor level on the residential building.

·  Floor plans of the residential building were displayed.  All apartments would surpass space standards.

·  Samples of materials and a model of the proposed development were available for Member’s inspection.

·  There would be space for other uses such as shops and medical services.

·  There would be additional amenity space on the top level of the residential building.

·  CGI images of the proposed buildings were displayed which highlighted detailing and also some internal spaces.

·  There had been a late letter of support from a local resident regarding the regeneration of the area and the provision of greenspace.

·  Wind issues – it was recommended that further wind modelling be carried out and this would be covered by condition.  Wind testing had indicated that a safe environment could be achieved.

·  Financial viability - the District Valuer had indicated that a Section 106 agreement would not be viable.  The applicant had offered contributions of £768,534 in addition to 16 discounted units.

 

Representatives of the District Valuer and the Applicant were in attendance for questions.  In response to questions from the Panel, discussion included the following:

 

·  Wind issues had been identified at the outset and building masses had been designed with this in mind.  The hexagonal shape of the residential building would address some wind issues and the site was also sheltered by the 31 storey building at the west side of Skinner Street.  There would be wind mitigation screening included within the landscaped areas.

·  Details of access and lighting to landscaped areas.  The landscaped areas would be publicly accessible with the exception of the roof terraces.

·  The viability of the scheme had been assessed and it was not felt possible to provide affordable housing and Section 106 benefits.  It was intended that the affordable units offered by the applicant would be on-site.

·  There were still discussions regarding the ownership of parts of the site and legal agreements to finalise.  It was hoped that works could commence in the final quarter of the year should the application be approved.  This would not affect the viability of the scheme.

·  It was not possible to provide the amount of greenspace on site that a scheme of this size would generate.  There would be an off-site contribution of £100,000.

·  The scheme would have a high quality landscaping scheme and planting and biodiversity would be covered by conditions.  The biodiversity proposals were higher than aspirational levels.

·  The footpath/cycleway would have natural surveillance.

·  There would be changes to the colour shades of the terracotta materials on the higher levels of the office buildings as the floors stepped in.  The samples provided were not demonstrate the colour but the quality of the material.  The changes in colour would be visible from the surrounding areas.

·  The playground would be separated from the road and would be designed to all relevant standards.  There would be both formal and informal play areas.

·  There had not been any discussion regarding the pre-agreed amount for any overage on profits.  There would be further viability assessments.

·  The residential building would be unique in its shape and form and this enabled the building to have space and sky surrounding whilst interacting with other buildings.  It was considered that it would be a landmark design and building.

·  The applicant was potentially paying more for the site due to the good condition of some of the buildings already on site.  This was taken into consideration during the viability assessment.

·  All units met space standards with some being more generous than others.

 

In response to Members comments, discussion included the following:

 

·  The proposals were eye catching and would provide an iconic development.

·  The design was interesting and innovative and there had been an enthusiasm regarding the design at pre-application stage.

·  Disappointment that there was inadequate greenspace for the kind of residential development that was proposed.

·  Skinner Street was required for access to the adjacent street as well as servicing arrangements.  If Skinner Street was removed altogether there would need to be a significant turning head which would take out space from the site.

·  Screens for wind mitigation could be designed to complement the buildings.  There had been a lot of work with the architects regarding the design of the buildings.  The hexagonal shape of the residential building would give a softer appearance.

·  Development of this site would be welcomed and the design proposals were innovative but there was disappointment with the lack of greenspace.

·  It was a positive design with exciting shapes ad colour schemes.

·  The open space needed to be attractive and have sufficient lighting and safety measures.

·  It was important that the viability was reviewed.

·  It would have been good to have had more greenspace on site and more affordable housing.

·  The development would enrich that part of the city and link with other developments.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the specified conditions set out in Appendix 2 (and any amendment to these and addition of others which he might consider appropriate), the completion of an acceptable Road Safety Audit and receipt of an acceptable peer review of the detailed wind mitigation proposals and subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations (all contributions to be index linked):

 

·  On-site affordable housing provision (16 discount market rent Build to Rent units)

·  Off-site greenspace contribution £100,000

·  Off-site highway improvements contribution £200,000

·  Residential Travel Plan Fund contribution £40,000

·  Travel Plan Review fee £28,234

·  Leeds City Bikes contribution £32,000

·  Off-site signal timing modifications contribution £20,000

·  Car Club trial contribution £13,505

·  Loss of Pay and Display bays £14,895 per bay (21) £312,795

·  Traffic Regulation Order changes contribution £10,000

·  Legible Leeds wayfinding contribution £12,000

·  Provision of two Leeds City Council Car Club provider parking spaces with an Electric Vehicle Charge Point

·  Compliance with Travel Plan measures

·  24 hour public access through the site

·  Local employment and training initiatives

·  Overage clause

·  Section 106 monitoring fee

 

In the circumstances where the Section 106 agreement has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.