Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new building for residential use (Use Class C3), provision of internal roads for vehicular and pedestrian access and servicing, car parking, landscaping, a substation, new pedestrian infrastructure and modifications to existing vehicular and pedestrian access at the Former Weetwood Police Station, 300 Otley Road, Weetwood, Leeds.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new building for residential use (Use Class C3), provision of internal roads for vehicular and pedestrian access and servicing, car parking, landscaping, a substation, new pedestrian infrastructure and modifications to existing vehicular and pedestrian access at the Former Weetwood Police Station, 300 Otley Road, Weetwood, Leeds.

The application had been considered as a position statement in August 2023. The report recommended to Members that the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions and s106 agreement as outlined in the submitted report. It was noted that alterations to the conditions include:

·  Condition 31 removed.

·  Condition 55 re-worded to include reference to removal of vegetation.

·  Addition of a condition relating to full balcony and balustrading details.

Panel Members (referenced above) had attended the site visit prior to the meeting.

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and contents of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

Objectors to the application attended the meeting. A Ward Councillor B Anderson addressed the Panel. Following this, Cllr B Anderson provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to the following:

·  Estimated costs of houses nearby which is believed to be between 250,000 – 600,000k.

·  Concerns regarding the lack of parking but there is a bus stop immediately outside of the development so on balance, that is considered acceptable. The main concern is affordable housing policies not being met.

The applicant’s representative attended the meeting. Mr Waring addressed the Panel. Following this, Mr Waring provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members,which in summary, related to the following:

·  Viability being an on-going issue and the offer of a dynamic section 106 to re-evaluate the financial situation 6 months before completion of the development.

·  The applicant is an investor and looking at the longer-term gain.

·  There is a covenant on the property that it cannot be sold, and the building can only be held by one company, and the properties must be rented out.

·   The build to rent product has evolved over the last 10-15 years and it is a new suburban product. It is considered that the rental costs are different of properties in the city centre. However, construction costs are the same.

·  The 700k commuted sum offer will not be made available should the application be refused and decided at an appeal hearing. Further to this, it was confirmed the scheme is currently un-viable and the commuted sum offer is a good will gesture.

·  The viability assessments carried out by the applicant and District Valuer are based on assumptions and both demonstrate the scheme cannot offer a commuted sum at present.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  Concern regarding the design / amenity element of two ground floor flats, particularly the light levels which are constrained by the construction of a car park wall. It was confirmed the wall is approximately 6-7m away from the properties. Members requested clarity on how the developer will mitigate against substandard flats and incorporating other design elements.

·  Clarity on Policy H5 which sets the aspirations for affordable housing. It was confirmed that the applicant is yet to decide whether they will provide 20% build to rent units onsite, or whether they will opt for the 700k commuted sum option with a clause. It was confirmed that the applicant must provide one or the other, and figures will be checked with the district valuer before completion to look at sums. Details are finalised in the Section 106 Agreement but there is a risk of the council only receiving the 700k commuted sum as a baseline.

·  Confirmation that there is a 15-year covenant on the properties that they cannot be sold, or there will be a financial penalty.

·  It was confirmed that there are other schemes where a Section 106 Agreement of a similar nature has been used to get closer to policy compliancy. Albeit some of those developments are still being built out.

·  Confirmation that there will be improvements to Lawnswood Roundabout in 2025 and it is fully funded and will help the development with connectivity.

·  Legal clarity on the weight decision makers apply to viability. Members were informed that there are some assurances provided by the overage clause in enabling real costs to be considered nearer completion.

·  The risk of not agreeing to the officer recommendation and not receiving a commuted sum and any affordable units.

·  There is no factual evidence of build to rent properties in suburban areas. Albeit it was noted that Adel is a highly desirable suburb of Leeds and the financial output of what has been estimated by the District Valuer may be higher.

·  Members collectively highlighted the importance of providing affordable housing for the people in Leeds.

·  The residual value of the properties has not been considered, and after 15 years the applicant can sell the properties.

·  Panel Members are content with the basic design principles of the development.

Further to discussions and clarity on non-availability of the District Valuer to attend the meeting, a member moved and another seconded a motion that the application be deferred until the District Valuer is available to attend a future South and West Plans Panel meeting to answer questions to enable Panel Members to be fully informed of and understanding of the viability issues, with regard to understanding the significant divergence between the applicants and District Valuers assessment of profitability. This was seen of particular importance as it would aid Members understanding of why the application was not policy compliant regarding Affordable Housing delivery and the applicant’s reluctance to accept an overage clause.

Upon voting, the application was deferred to enable the district valuer to attend a meeting.

RESOLVED – To defer the application as per above.