Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals against the refusal of inspection of documents.

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

There were no items identified where it was considered necessary to exclude the press or public from the meeting due to the confidential nature of the business to be considered.

There were no late items of business identified.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests made at the meeting.

To receive apologies for absence (If any)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G Latty.

Councillor R Stephenson was in attendance as a substitute Member.

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19^th November 2020.

(Copy attached)

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 19^th November 2020 were submitted for comment/ approval.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19^th November 2020 be accepted as a true and correct record.

To consider any Matters Arising from the minutes.

Matters arising from the Minutes (Minute No. 65 referred) – It was agreed at the last meeting that the Chair would write, on behalf of Panel to all officers within Planning Services who had recently retired from the Council expressing the thanks and appreciation of Members for their contribution to the service. The Chair confirmed that all letters had been sent.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and structures and outline planning permission with all matters reserved, except for access, for the redevelopment of the site for residential dwellings (use class C3), flexible commercial space (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, D1 and D2) and associated refuse and plant infrastructure, landscaping, new public realm and open space at The Former Arla Foods site, 87 – 91 Kirkstall Road, Burley, Leeds, LS3 1HS

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, except for access, for the redevelopment of the site for residential dwellings (use class C3), flexible commercial space (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, D1 and D2) and associated refuse and plant infrastructure, landscaping, new public realm and open space at The Former Arla Foods site, 87 – 91 Kirkstall Road, Burley, Leeds, LS3 1HS.

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

The Planning case officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  The site is in an area consisting of office use, light industrial use, warehousing, residential use and car parking.

·  The site is a vacant brownfield site “L” shaped 2.07 hectares in size located to the south of Kirkstall Road (A65) with a frontage onto the River Aire

·  The proposal is to demolish the existing buildings and structures and construct six blocks of residential dwellings and flexible commercial use totalling 631 units, the blocks ranging in height 7-16 storeys

·  Supporting commercial uses at ground floor level

·  Two access points onto the site via Kirkstall Road and Washington Street

·  Flood risk assessment (Flood Zone 3) – nearby flood alleviation works

·  Wind study

·  Proposal for 242 car parking spaces

·  Substantial landscaping provision

·  Connectivity throughout the site

·  Affordable housing provision 7% (44 units)

Members raised the following questions to officers/ applicants representatives:

·  The access onto Kirkstall Road is shared with the adjacent office use, would the access still be adequate to serve both the proposed development and any future redevelopment of the office site with a more intensive use

·  Members at pre-application stage raised concerns about the extent of surface car parking that was proposed. How had these been addressed

·  How does the development fit in with neighbouring developments such as City Reach, would this site have a similar visual impact

·  What was the cumulative traffic implications on Kirkstall Road and further out of the city centre

·  Will a riverside walkway be provided.

·  From this location, where would car users be travelling to

·  What flood mitigation measures are being put in place

·  What will be subject to the reserved matters application

In responding to the issues raised, officers said:

·  The LCC Highway Officer said although this potential development scenario had not been tested, the large car park serving the existing office use had been taken into account in assessing the acceptability of the proposals and it was  unlikely that any proposed redevelopment of the office site would have a greater impact on the highway network than the existing office car park

·  The LCC Highway Officer said the level of car parking was set by what the developer considers they will need to meet minimum market demand. However, the fact that it was to be provided at surface  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks planning permission for the construction of two residential blocks including access, parking provision, the drainage layout and landscaping at land off Flax Place, Richmond Street, Marsh Lane and East Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought planning permission for the construction of two residential blocks including access, parking provision, the drainage layout and landscaping at land off Flax Place, Richmond Street, Marsh Lane and East Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9.

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

The Planning case officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  A similar scheme for this site had previously been granted consent but had since fallen away

·  City Centre site

·  Former commercial use site, now proposing residential use

·  This current application was the subject of a financial viability consideration

·  The proposal to construct two stepped residential blocks of up to 11 storeys (East Block) and 15 storeys (West Block) totalling 350 units (56.3% of the units being one bedroomed, 42.3% of the units being two bedroomed and 1.4% of the units being three bedroomed)

·  Affordable housing provision 3.14% (11 units)

·  38 car parking spaces, all with electric vehicle charging points, 36 motorcycle spaces and 376 cycle parking spaces plus 10 visitor cycle stands

·  Landscape provision

·  Communal space provision

·  There was no retail or GP Surgery provision proposed, but it was understood the nearby Lincoln Green GP surgery may be upgraded at a later date.

It was reported that in addition to the letters referred to in the submitted report further letters of objection had been received referring to: bats roosting/ foraging on site, the loss of wildlife habitat, loss of trees, gentrification of the site, putting profits before people, lack of community engagement due to Covid-19 Pandemic, wind issues and fire safety issues.

The Panel then heard from Tiffany Mazza and Mike Heckman who were objecting to the proposals.

Ms Mazza said the development would cause increased traffic generation and safety problems to the area, the lack and reduction of parking would cause overspill on flax place. She said there had been 30 road traffic accidents between 2013/18 and Flax Place was a key route for ambulance despatch, adding to this already problematic area would cause more issues. Ms Mazza said this scheme (build to rent) provided only 1.4% of 3 bedroom accommodation which was less than the Councils own target of 30%. The scheme was not viable to provide the minimum 7% of affordable housing as outlined in the Core Strategy. She said build to rent schemes attracted absent landlords and leads to a transient population who do not invest in the local community unlike permanent residents, similar nearby developments had these same issues. It was suggested the visual appearance of the building was “ugly”, the Civic Trust commenting that the external façade treatment had been “dumbed down” from the well-expressed modelling and classic framing of the original to a flatter, blander treatment. The development was expected to deliver high quality innovative design, this design falls well short. Finally the community engagement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation for a new Masterplan and Planning Brief for the Eastgate Quarter (formerly known as Victoria Gate Phase 2) at Land Bound by New York Road (Inner Ring Road A64), Vicar Lane, Eastgate and Bridge Street, Leeds 2.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out detail of a

Pre-application Presentation for a new Masterplan and Planning Brief for the Eastgate Quarter (formerly known as Victoria Gate Phase 2) at land bound by New York Road (Inner Ring Road A64), Vicar Lane, Eastgate and Bridge Street, Leeds 2.

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

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  Principle of the proposed uses and the layout of the Masterplan

·  Heritage considerations

·  Landscape principles

·  Transport strategy

·  Sustainability and Climate Change

The Planning case officer reported the receipt of a letter of representation from a Ward Councillor who was supportive of the New Masterplan and Planning Brief

Members raised the following questions:

·  How would the proposals meet the Council’s carbon neutral agenda

·  Could an indication be given of the type of residential accommodation to be provided and would there be sufficient funds to deliver the vision

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representatives said:

·  Members were informed that the developers were carefully looking at the carbon footprint. There was a move in the construction industry to construct more timber framed buildings, but concrete was important for safety reasons (concrete stairwells), but the emphasis was for less concrete and more timber.

·  Members were informed that the Masterplan/ Planning Brief was a milestone of aspiration with a vision to create new vibrant places. There was a broad range of funding opportunities with delivery of the various schemes being delivered in “chunks”. It was reported that an analysis of residential capacity suggested that approximately 1000 housing units comprising of build to rent, student accommodation and affordable owner occupied would be provided.

In responding to the suggested housing provision, one Member expressed the view that the area would suit some “high end residential accommodation” for people who were seeking to downsize to smaller accommodation.

In offering comments on the officers’ questions in the report:

·  Members were supportive of the approach to the emerging mix of uses as set out on the Masterplan

·  Members were supportive of the emerging principles on development plots, maximum building parameters and public spaces

·  Members were supportive of the emerging principles on the landscape strategy. It was important to ensure that any proposed water features could be maintained and continue to work

·  Members were supportive of the emerging principles on the transport strategy

·  Members were supportive of the emerging principles on sustainability

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the Masterplan.

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 11^th February 2021 at 1.30pm (Remote Meeting – Zoom)

RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday,11^th February 2021 at 1.30pm (Remote Meeting)