Agenda and minutes

To declare any personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purposes of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct

Councillor E Nash – Application 08/01914/FU Lumiere Building – declared both personal and prejudicial interests as a member of the Co-operative Group. Councillor Nash had been elected to the Group since the pre-application presentation and the Co-Op had premises very close to the application site (minute 58 refers)

Councillor T Hanley – Application 09/04815/OT Leeds Arena - declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust. The Civic Trust had commented on the application (minute 60 refers)

Councillor J Monaghan – Application 09/04815/OT Leeds Arena -  declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Civic Trust and a member of the North Street and Regent Street Residents’ Association as both organisations had submitted comments on the proposals (minute 60 refers)

No apologies for absence were received

To approve the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 3^rd December 2009

(minutes attached)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3^rd December 2009 be approved as a correct record

Councillor Nash, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following matter, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision making process

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer  setting out proposed reasons to refuse an application for the erection of a 33 storey and a 55 storey development with connecting covered public winter garden -  comprising 832 flats, 120 serviced apartments, offices, health centre ground floor and mezzanine level retail uses (A1, A3, A4 and A5) and basement car parking with landscaping. This scheme is a revision to permission 06/01622/FU which was approved by Panel on 4^th April 2007

(Report attached)

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Planning Officer on the current position with regards to the Lumiere development and setting out four proposed reasons to refuse application 08/1914/FU (which set out revisions to Application 06/01622/FU approved in April 2007) relating to the scheme.

The Panel was aware of the planning history of the site. Panel had delegated authority to grant permission for Application 08/1914/FU for the revised scheme to officers on 22 July 2008 subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement (S106).

The report before Panel today outlined the lack of progress of the scheme and the attempts made to encourage the developer to complete and sign the S106 necessary for the final grant of the permission. A copy of the July 2008 report and minutes of that meeting were included for reference.

Development works on site ceased in July 2008. KW Linfoot, joint developer of the scheme, went into Administration in February 2009, following which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) contacted Fraser Properties as the partner developer to seek to finally dispose of the application due to the failure to complete and sign the 106 Agreement.

The Head of Planning Services reported that the agent for the application had responded just prior to the meeting stating their agreement to the matter being presented to Panel for determination. In essence this report sought approval to move the application from Part 1 of the Planning Register (current schemes) to Part 2 (Historical schemes). The Panel was assured that this would not represent the end of the Lumiere development as the 2007 permission remained extant and could be completed. Mechanisms existed for developers to seek an extension on the time limit of permissions and this could be done in this case.

The Panel was advised that there were 62 similar schemes in the city centre where there was an extant permission where an extension of time could be applied for.

The Panel discussed problems reported generally with developers being able to deliver contributions detailed within S106 Agreements, particularly having regard to the current economic climate. The Head of Planning Services reported on government advice that encouraged LPA’s take a flexible approach in such cases, such as reviewing the date of contributions payments, if that would assist the delivery of the overall scheme. Additionally, a developer could make an application to vary the terms of a S106 attached to permission, however he emphasised the need for developers to remain in contact with the LPA particularly about any changes in circumstances as failure to deliver the S106 would be an enforcement matter.

Members expressed regret that the scheme had not been progressed. The Panel whilst supporting the officers’ recommendation contained within the report also sought to emphasise their continued support for the Lumiere development and remained keen to see the 2007 permission implemented

RESOLVED –  To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1) In the absence of a completed signed Section 106 Agreement the proposal fails to deliver any provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Councillor Nash resumed her seat in the meeting

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application to demolish and replace the existing building with a six storey office block at 6 Queen Street/28a York Place

(Report attached)

Members considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposals for an office block development with basement car parking at 6 Queen Street/28A York Place.

Plans and architects drawings of the proposals were displayed along with photographs of the existing building, streetscene and photo montages showing the proposed building in-situ.

The Panel had received a pre-application presentation on early proposals for the development in July 2009. Since then the applicant had responded to comments made at that presentation and the subsequent amendments were highlighted within the report. The Panel viewed slides showing the earlier proposals with the revised scheme for comparison and noted the following in particular:

York Place elevation – the window patterns gave a vertical emphasis, creating the form of terrace properties to the street frontage. The windows were set in deep reveals with brick settings. Larger windows were to the ground floor in keeping with the style of the surrounding area but more glazing in smaller windows were located to the upper floor with the 5th floor set back to lessen the impact of the height

Queen Street elevation – the architects’ drawings showed the use of brick, with brise soleil added to the upper floor and the vertical influence of the windows. Windows were again set in deep recesses and the 5^th floor was set further back, appearing as a glazed box

Corner feature - more glazing had been introduced which provided a lighter touch to the treatment of the corner, whilst still linking the two elevations and retaining the vertical feel.

Officers reported the contents of a letter received from Leeds Civic Trust since the despatch of the agenda which broadly welcomed the improvements made to the Queen Street elevation but did comment on the deletion of the use of Portland Stone from the York Place elevation. Officers responded that the use of brick better reflected materials in the area and was more appropriate. The Civic Trust reiterated its concern as to why relatively modern buildings required demolition and officers responded they were relatively poor performers in terms of BREEAM standards and the new build would achieve the “excellent” standard.

Officers reported the contents of the comments now received from METRO regarding the development being well situated in terms of public transport but querying whether the number of car parking spaces could be reduced.

Officers highlighted the request for a 5 year time limit on the permission, rather than the usual 3 years, and explained the current occupiers of the building had a lease until 2012. A 5 year permission would allow the developers time to gain possession of the building.

Additionally, a query had been raised regarding financial viability and the terms of the Section 106 Agreement. A Viability Assessment had been completed and revealed that if the Local Planning Authority sought the public transport infrastructure contributions the whole scheme would not be viable. Officers had responded to this approach by suggesting that the viability could be reconsidered when the scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To consider a position statement on the outline application to develop a multi use arena with ancillary restaurants (A3), bars (A4) and retail units (A1) and provision of public realm, laying out of new access and pedestrian footpath.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a position statement on the development proposals for the Leeds Arena. The Panel had previously visited the site and had received a pre-application presentation on 8^th October 2009.

Members noted receipt of comments from both statutory and non statutory consultees and were aware of recent comments in the press from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) regarding the design of the Arena.

Mr P Crabtree, the Chief Planning Officer, addressed the meeting and acknowledged the comments made by CABE and in response, he clarified that CABE had accepted the site was suitable for the Arena development but had queried the approach adopted to the planning process. Mr Crabtree explained that securing Outline permission would provide assurance that the principle of the development was agreed in the first instance, and allow the necessary contracts and road closure orders to be progressed. Mr Crabtree stressed the importance of this development to the city and its aspirations and that it would have a significant regenerating impact on the northern part of the city centre.

The Principal Planning Officer then explained that Outline permission would provide the developer with flexibility in the design process whilst keeping overall momentum in the planning process.

The contents of an additional letter of representation received from the North Street and Regent Street Residents Association were reported regarding residents’ parking controls and improved pedestrian links, particularly through the site to the Lovell Park area.

Plans and aerial photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Photos showing views to and across the site from various vantage points, including photo montages with the proposed Arena in-situ, were also displayed.  Officers reported their view the Arena sat well within the site however the developer was aware the Brunswick Street elevation required further consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal was supported by national and local policy and would deliver sustainable economic benefit. He highlighted the benefit of this site being close to the city centre and good transport infrastructure/pedestrian links and went onto outline the following matters:

Bus stops – to be improved within the immediate locality with an NGT stop proposed on Woodhouse Lane

Pedestrian access – the piazza will provide a new north-south route and a new northern footpath will link with the eastern network and provide through routes towards Eastgate/Harewood Quarter

Junctions – a new crossing will be provided on Clay Pit Lane designed to accommodate high volumes of pedestrians; the Merrion Way/Brunswick Terrace junction will be improved to include a raised plateau to assist pedestrian movement around the Arena and the Clay Pit Lane junction at The Coburg public house will also be improved

Car parking – there were an estimated 2,900 car parking spaces within 400m of the site and on-street parking will be discouraged in residential areas. Existing Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) and Residents Parking Permit areas will be improved and extended. Parking spaces for disabled people would be provided on the access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Councillors Hanley; Latty and J McKenna withdrew from the meeting at this point. Councillor Nash withdrew for a short time before the Panel moved onto the next item of business

To consider and comment upon a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plans Document Police Position Report (Preferred Options) which was released by the Council’s Development Plans Panel as the basis for informal public consultation commencing 18^th January 2010

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report in support of a presentation to Panel on the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (NRWDPD).  The Development Plan Panel had considered the Policy Position Report on 13^th October 2009 and referred the matter to each of the Plans Panels as part of the wider public consultation process taking place between 18 January and 1 March 2010.

An Officer from the Strategy and Policy Section within City Development Department presented the report and tabled a copy of the Policy Position Report Summary at the meeting. The Summary was now being distributed as part of the consultation process and available to the public at the consultation road shows. The main points of the document were outlined relating to:

Land use – the need for efficient use of previously developed land, particularly contaminated land and the need to safeguard existing rail sidings and canal wharfs in order to promote less use of the road networks for haulage. Holbeck sidings and Marsh Lane had been identified within the City Centre Plans Panel area

Minerals – existing mineral sites to be safeguarded from building development to ensure continued reserves. None identified within this Plans Panel area.

Water resources – space for floodwater should be created by protecting areas of functional floodplain and by ensuring that developments in flood risk areas provided space for flood water. Developers should be required to take measures to reduce the rate of surface water run-off and include water efficiency measures within their development proposals. A particular issue for city centre developments would be discouraging applicants from regarding the whole of the site to the boundary line as a developable area.

Air quality – Developers to be requested to include measures for improving air quality commensurate to the size of the development and investigate the benefits of low emission zones.

Energy – significant encouragement to be given to greater use of renewable energy generation. A map was displayed showing the areas of Leeds moist suitable for wind power generation and attention was drawn to the map showing the location of the four possible new strategic waste sites. The importance of reducing, re-using and recycling waste was highlighted and the need to generate energy from waste.

Members commented that every new dwelling should be issued with a water butt and discussed the reliability of wind power for general energy generation compared to traditional fossil fuelled power. The Panel broadly supported the promotion of haulage movements by water rather than road, and noted a suggestion to actively encourage LEZ’s around the Ring Road in order to tie in with and protect the future of the use of low emission buses in Leeds.

RESOLVED - That the contents of the report and the presentation and the comments made by the Panel be noted

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Thursday 4^th March 2010 at 1.30pm

PLEASE NOTE: THERE ARE NO SITE VISITS SCHEDULED THIS MONTH

RESOLVED – To note the date  and time of the next meeting as Thursday 4^th March 2010 at 1.30 pm