Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

Wednesday 26^th May 2010 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  The Head of Planning Services referred to the next scheduled date for a meeting of Plans Panel City Centre, this being Wednesday 25^th May 2010.  As this was the day before Annual Council, Members were asked to consider whether they wished to have the meeting on that day or postpone it to the following week

  Members discussed this and there was some support for the proposal to move the meeting to the following week but it was decided not to make a decision until after the outcome of the local elections.  It was agreed that the clerk would liaise with the Head of Planning Services on this and notify Members accordingly

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)

  There were no late items

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

  Application 09/03829/OT – 10-11 Sweet Street Holbeck – Councillors Hanley and Monaghan declared personal interests through being members of Leeds Civic Trust which had previously commented on the proposals (minute 90 refers)

  No apologies for absence had been received

To approve the minutes from the Plans Panel City Centre meetings held on 22^nd March 2010 and 1^st April 2010

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the Plans Panel City Centre meetings held on 22^nd March and 1^st April 2010 be approved

Further to minute 43 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 5^th November 2009 where Panel considered a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application to erect B1 offices in two blocks and a health and fitness centre with multi-storey car park

(report attached)

  Further to minute 43 of the Plans Panel City Centre meeting held on 5^th November 2009 where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a mixed-use, phased development at 10-11 Sweet Street Holbeck, Members considered a report seeking approval for an outline application

  Plans, photographs and precedent images were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that the outline application sought approval for the principle of development together with access, layout and scale with all other matters being reserved

  Approximately 8000sqm of office space was proposed in two six storey buildings, with a multi-storey car park (MSCP) to the east of the site and a gym on the ground floor of the site

  Leeds Civic Trust had previously expressed concerns at the proposed height of the blocks which had now been amended to 5 storeys and a plant room which Officers considered to be more acceptable

  Landscaping would be provided as part of the scheme.  Approximately half of the 1 hectare site would be undeveloped and much of that would be used as public open space

  In the first phase of development the MSCP, gym, the north/south cycle route and some landscaping would be delivered, with the office blocks and other landscaping being developed in the second phase

  In respect of the car park, 596 spaces would be provided, with 104 of these being allocated to the gym and offices and the remaining spaces being for short stay parking.  Members were informed that a car parking management plan had been submitted which included details of cycle storage, tariffs and shared vehicle spaces

  The short stay spaces would be for five hours or under, with the tariff being negotiated with the Council and then monitored in the future.  If it was found that a high level of long stay parking was occurring, further controls could be imposed.  It would also be possible to allocate some of the  parking spaces to other users in the surrounding area, particularly Holbeck Urban Village (HUV)

  Officers provided details of the S106 contributions and reported the receipt of a letter of objection from the Mosaic Church which had questioned the need for the site to be developed

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  whether enforcement action was being taken on the site for allowing unauthorised car parking and whether there were proposals for any other MSCPs in the area

·  that car parking was taking place on the Sweet Street frontage of the site and that details of the level of this was requested

·  the lack of a bus service in the area of Holbeck Urban Village which could lead to more people using cars to access the facilities on the site

·  that delivery of the offices ahead of the MSCP was preferred

·  design details of the office blocks with concerns being raised at the stepping down of the top storey adjacent to Marshall Street.  This could be continued at the upper height to help screen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the changes required to existing bus services to facilitate the development of Boar Lane undercroft as part of the Trinity West scheme

(report attached)

A colour copy of the plan accompanying the report can be viewed on the internet and an A3 sized colour plan has been included with Members’ papers

  Plans of the proposals were displayed at the meeting

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing information on the strategy to relocate bus services currently located on Boar Lane in the undercroft of the Leeds Shopping Plaza – to be known as Trinity West to facilitate that development

  Officers presented the report and stated that there were currently 8 bus stops but that it was felt that 5 stops would be sufficient to accommodate the buses as this would enable up to 20 buses per hour to stop in this location

  Members had regard to a colour site plan which indicated the stops being considered for alteration and were informed that stop T3A would be removed for the NGT service and stop T4 would be relocated to accommodate the NGT service, this being resited on Duncan Street

  A new stop would be provided on Infirmary Street and stop P5 in City Square would become a prestigious location for a prominent transport hub which would also include the NGT services.  The articulated bus service, Route 4, would also stop at P5 and buses serving St James Hospital would be regrouped at this point

  Three other stops, P6A, T2 and T3 would be enhanced with improved shelters and real time information

  The proposals would continue to provide conveniently located stops and would create an improved route at the side of Holy Trinity Church

  Members were informed that the proposals had the support of Metro, subject to the developer funding the improvements to the stops; contributing to the NGT interchange and the public information which would be needed on the relocation of the stops.  The proposals would need to be ratified by the Metro Board

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  whether bus operators had been consulted on the proposals

·  concerns at possible blockages on stands G and H sited on Infirmary Street as these were already busy with concerns that often the FTR bus had difficulties in exiting Infirmary Street

·  the relocation of stop P8 to G; that this was congested; that the next stop at T4 was too far away and whether stop P6A would be at capacity

·  that bus stops could be relocated if the proposals did not work, but that there was only one chance to improve this part of Boar Lane

·  that stop P8 needed to be given further consideration

·  that the changes to New Station Street with the introduction of buses stopping directly outside the railway station had not worked out as envisaged and had an adverse impact and concerns that the proposals being put forward could result in a similar situation

The Panel’s Highways representative stated that bus operators had

been involved in discussions on this and had signed up to the proposals.  The scheme had been considered both with and without NGT and Officers were satisfied that the proposals would work.  Members were informed that this particular part of the NGT proposals did have funding allocated to it

  RESOLVED -  To note the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.